Calvine Photo Hoax Theories

[Andreas]

I've decided to make one more attempt to recreate the Calvine photo, incorporating what I've learned from my previous experiments.

I bought an old, UK-produced 7 cm Dinky Toys Hawker Hunter to use as a prop for the jet. (I know it's often interpreted as a Harrier, but I simply think a Hunter is a better match — and the Dinky Toys Hunter was easily accessible to a hoaxer back in 1990. That said, it doesn't really matter, since same-scale Harriers were available as well.)

I'm currently working on my "UFO" prop. As soon as it's ready, I plan to create six photos showing a stationary "UFO" being intercepted by a jet. I'll try to match what we see in the Calvine photo as closely as possible.

Until then, I couldn't resist taking an improvised photo of the small jet to see what it would look like against a cloudy sky. (We get plenty of gray skies here in Sweden!) I used a 50 mm lens. When placing the jet 3.6 meters from the camera, it appears roughly the same size as the "jet" in the Calvine photo. This aligns well with Robinson's analysis, where he concludes that the fence is about 10.6 meters away, assuming a 50 mm lens. Using the same calculations, a 7 cm jet prop should indeed be placed roughly 3.6 meters from the camera to appear as it does in the Calvine image.

I haven't experimented with focus yet, and since I took my photo in the middle of the day, the result is much too sharp. But what's interesting is how we tend to interpret a small object shot against a distant sky as something large and far away.

The jet in my photo is suspended from a fishing line attached to the upper hinge of the garage door in the foreground. Also, my neighbor's house (40 meters away) and the forest (140 meters away) aren't extremely blurred but fairly sharp, even though the focus is set close to the jet.

 

[Charlie Wiser]

I think the Christmas star is more likely

View attachment 85038

I think the Christmas star is more likely because there's a dark spot (and shadows) corresponding to the star's arm that projects toward the camera, as well as a bead on the end. A glitter coating explains the uneven surface. Calvine is not symmetrical thru the vertical axis which matches how a 5-pointed star appears at this angle. No need to create something from scratch. It seems to be inspired by the Puerto Rico hoax.

 

[Andreas]

I think the Christmas star is more likely



I think the Christmas star is more likely because there's a dark spot (and shadows) corresponding to the star's arm that projects toward the camera, as well as a bead on the end. A glitter coating explains the uneven surface. Calvine is not symmetrical thru the vertical axis which matches how a 5-pointed star appears at this angle. No need to create something from scratch. It seems to be inspired by the Puerto Rico hoax.

View attachment 85313

Could be, absolutely. We know Christmas stars exist—unlike strange anti-gravity craft. But I do think it's a bit risky to look for patterns in the grain or blur. It's hard to determine what's actually there and what's just pareidolia. Personally, I suspect the dark spot and the two white areas represent some kind of real feature on the object. The rest? Well, since we're looking at a scan of a reproduction photo taken from another photo—and considering that it's been handled and stored for decades—some of the less distinct details should probably be taken with a grain of salt. (Some of what we see might even be scratches or pressure marks on the surface of the actual photo.)

If I had to guess, I'd bet that the white areas are pieces of tape holding the object in place, suspended from a horizontal fishing line. And the dark spot? I haven't got a clue, but a small hole or dent could look something like that.

With all that said—could it be a Christmas star? Sure, why not? But I don't really see anything that proves that's the case. I also agree with you that it's most likely inspired by the Puerto Rico hoax, though I think the Belgian UFO wave might have influenced the hoaxer as well, given all the media buzz around 1989–90.

 

[Andreas]

Here's an attempt by me to create six sequential photographs showing a jet flying by a stationary diamond shaped "ufo". I used a vintage 7 cm Dinky Toys Hawker Hunter. (Yes, I know it's said to be a Harrier, but personally I find the Hunter a much better match for the blurry silhouette in Lindsay's photo. It doesn't really matter, though, since Dinky Harriers were available as well.)

I used a 50 mm lens, (f/5.8, 1/125s & ISO 200), and placed the jet on a horizontal fishing line about 3.6 meters from the camera.

For the "UFO," I used a 28 cm cardboard pyramid positioned at the same distance as the jet. If we're looking at two objects suspended by fishing line, it seems reasonable to assume both were hung between the same two trees.

Here's the result:

The most important lesson learned was how easy it is to attach a model jet to a horizontal line and slide it along between shots to create the illusion of movement. Wind wasn't an issue, even though it was a fairly windy day.

In other words, a kid could have done it using a toy and a simple cardboard prop. Many other, more far-fetched explanations are possible as well, but until this one is disproven, I tend to stick with it.

 

[NorCal Dave]

I used a 50 mm lens, (f/5.8, 1/125s & ISO 200),

I assume you're using a digital camera? Then taking the color out in a photo editing program? I don't remember if it was on the MAC or Windows, but one of them definitely had a "grain" setting allowing one to add grain like an older film photo. In the original photo,it seems the entire thing is a bit out of focus and very grainy, though this could have been the result of it being copied at the newspaper.

 

[Andreas]

I assume you're using a digital camera? Then taking the color out in a photo editing program? I don't remember if it was on the MAC or Windows, but one of them definitely had a "grain" setting allowing one to add grain like an older film photo. In the original photo,it seems the entire thing is a bit out of focus and very grainy, though this could have been the result of it being copied at the newspaper.

Well, I used an old analog camera taking the initial photos, and then I use a digital camera to take the "repro photos". Some extra grain and blur might have been added when Lindsay's analog repro photo was created. And also, the kids taking the initial photos might have had a hard time setting focus.

 

[purpleivan]

I've had a quick stab in Photoshop, at giving one of Andreas' images, the kind of graininess in an original Calvine photo. I also reduced the size of Andreas' image to that of the calvine image (based on the image in this thread's OP) plus some levels and colour adjustment to give it a similar appearanc to the originals.

I also saved it as a medium quality JPEG, to add the element the compression artefacts present in the original (at least as I've seen them in this thread). To me this looks pretty similar to the original, in terms of colouring and grain, although Andreas' images are sharper, even when reduced to the same resolution as the original Calvine photo. I'd guess due to better focus.

 

[Andreas]

I've had a quick stab in Photoshop, at giving one of Andreas' images, the kind of graininess in an original Calvine photo. I also reduced the size of Andreas' image to that of the calvine image (based on the image in this thread's OP) plus some levels and colour adjustment to give it a similar appearanc to the originals.

I also saved it as a medium quality JPEG, to add the element the compression artefacts present in the original (at least as I've seen them in this thread). To me this looks pretty similar to the original, in terms of colouring and grain, although Andreas' images are sharper, even when reduced to the same resolution as the original Calvine photo. I'd guess due to better focus.

View attachment 85485

Yeah, I mean, we don't really know how Lindsay's photo was made. It appears to be a reproduction created in the Daily Record lab, and at the time they didn't have access to the original negatives — hence the somewhat poor quality. And as you say, the hoaxer might have messed with the focus, probably on purpose, to make it look a bit more believable. To me, it seems like the Calvine photo was a fake created using small models suspended by horizontal fishing lines. That's by far (to me) the most plausible explanation.

 

[John J.]

I also agree with you that it's most likely inspired by the Puerto Rico hoax, though I think the Belgian UFO wave might have influenced the hoaxer as well

David Clarke wondered if the Puerto Rico hoax inspired the Calvine photograph(s) on Twitter, now X, in 2021

Source: https://x.com/shuclarke/status/1425853596881625088

It looks like he used one of the Calvine viewfoils, not the photograph, but the point he's making is clear.
I feel a bit ambivalent about Clarke flipping the Puerto Rico image and altering its orientation a little to make it look even more like the Calvine image;

It must be possible that both the Puerto Rico and Calvine photos were independently inspired by several accounts in UFO lore of fighter planes "intercepting" exotic craft; from Captain Thomas Mantell's tragic 1948 encounter in a P-51 Mustang (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mantell_UFO_incident) via the F-94 Starfires deployed during the 1952 "Washington invasion" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1952_Washington,_D.C._UFO_incident), Imperial Iranian Air Force F-4 Phantoms attempting to intercept a UFO in 1976 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_Tehran_UFO_incident), Belgian Air Force F-16s scrambled to investigate reports of black triangles (but seeing/ detecting nothing) in 1990, others.

These incidents might appeal to UFO enthusiasts because they interpret them as meaning the authorities (particularly the military) take UFO reports seriously, maybe with the implication that they know more than they're telling us, but of course many nations might want to check out reports of unidentified aircraft in their airspace, regardless of the origins of the reported craft.
Or maybe the hypothetical hoaxers just wanted to make a more interesting/ dramatic picture (and a tiny jet gives an impression of scale).

The Calvine photo's credibility is perhaps undermined by the unlikeliness of either Harriers or Hunters being tasked as interceptors.
The only radar-equipped Harriers before 1992 were Sea Harriers, they were few in number and based at Yeovilton in SW England or on board carriers. The other Harrier types were never considered for air-to-air operations (though carrying Sidewinder missiles they had a limited self-defence capability).
Hunters hadn't been in front-line use for many years; two-seat variants continued as trainers for Buccaneer crew, a small number were used by the Royal Navy to mimic anti-ship aircraft so warship crews had targets for training purposes, others were used as trials/ research aircraft. Long since retired from the air defence role (early 1960s) they lacked modern radar and (particularly) weapons and countermeasures.

Both Hunters and Harriers (though very different aircraft) were subsonic, and of relatively limited range/ endurance. Both were single-engined; the RAF preferred twin-engined aircraft as interceptors because of the large areas over the North Atlantic and North Sea that air defence types had to cover- loss of an engine was arguably more survivable in a twin-engined plane. (The Navy had a choice of Sea Harriers or no ship-based jets at all after its larger aircraft carriers were retired in the 1970s).

In 1990, the UK's Quick Reaction Alert aircraft, which would respond to approaching aircraft of interest or any unidentified incursions, were Tornado F3 Air Defence Variants and the older F-4 Phantom IIs. Both aircraft types were twin-engined, had approx. Mach 2 performance, carried air-intercept radar and both short- and medium-range air-to-air missiles.
There was a QRA station at RAF Leuchars, Fife in 1990, where two air defence squadrons were based. This was only 49 miles / 79 km from Calvine "as the crow flies".

I guess there's a very small possibility that a Harrier might have been used as a chase plane for an experimental VTOL aircraft or a platform capable of both forward flight and hovering due to its own abilities, but it seems highly unlikely a sensitive trial would be conducted in public view (and we've not seen any evidence of a Calvine-style piece of hardware in the 35 years since, AFAIK).

 

[Andreas]

I feel a bit ambivalent about Clarke flipping the Puerto Rico image and altering its orientation a little to make it look even more like the Calvine image

Yeah, that's a bit of a problem with Clarke's post. The two pictures aren't that similar after all, but they do depict the same kind of scene — strange craft, military jet, foliage, etc. Interestingly, the Puerto Rico flying saucer looks somewhat diamond-shaped when seen from the side. One possibility is that a potential Calvine hoaxer might have been inspired by the look of the "Puerto Rico craft" when creating their UFO model. But again, it could just as easily be a coincidence.

Personally, I think the connection with the geometric craft reported in Belgium the previous year seems more likely. And it's hardly far-fetched to imagine that reports of Belgian fighter jets being scrambled to intercept these strange triangles might have inspired a hoaxer to create the Calvine scene.

a tiny jet gives an impression of scale

Absolutely. I really think that's the main reason a hoaxer would include a jet in a fake UFO photo. We all know the approximate size of a jet, but we have no idea how large the diamond is. Without the jet, the Calvine photo is indeed far less dramatic:

Also, taking a photo of a small static model dangling from a tree doesn't take any effort — a kid could do it, and most people realize how easy it is. But creating a scene with a jet flying by requires a bit more effort and skill. It's not particularly difficult, but it does take some extra thought to make it believable. That's why the jet, not the diamond, is the key element in the Calvine photo. Without the jet, I'm quite sure few people would ever have considered the photo genuine — that is, depicting some secret military craft high up in the sky.

The Calvine photo's credibility is perhaps undermined by the unlikeliness of either Harriers or Hunters being tasked as interceptors.

Absolutely, that's one of the main problems with the photo. But again, it's really difficult to say what type of aircraft we're looking at — though we can definitely tell what type it isn't. Both Tornados and Phantoms can be ruled out. This makes me think the hoaxer either didn't know much about aircraft, or simply used a model he already had lying around. It's often assumed that if it's a hoax, it must be elaborate and well-prepared, but that's not necessarily the case. If you already have the model plane, the whole setup could easily be done in just a few minutes.

 

[Mendel]

It's often assumed that if it's a hoax, it must be elaborate and well-prepared, but that's not necessarily the case. If you already have the model plane, the whole setup could easily be done in just a few minutes.

...and without any research done on which type of aircraft the RAF would plausibly send

 

[JMartJr]

Without the jet, the Calvine photo is indeed far less dramatic:

That's fascinating. When I first looked at that, my impression was of a MUCH larger and more distant whatever-it-is, like a distant mountain peak poking abpve the clouds (possibly the lighter tone suggests greater atmospheric perspective and that becomes dominant, to me, without the jet to hint that it is closer? A second look said, no, the "dark underbelly" does not work as well with a distant mountain -- but the initial impression was VERY strong.

Repeated looks, it is all over the map, from small and close model back out to being a rare Scottish volcano off in the distance!

The jet, to me, REALLY sells the picture as a UFO craft of some sort.

 

[John J.]

The other Harrier types were never considered for air-to-air operations...

Off-topic but for the sake of accuracy, my statement above is wrong;

Between 10 and 24 May 1982, prior to the British landings in the Falklands, a detachment of three GR.3s was deployed to provide air defence for Ascension Island [in the mid-Atlantic] until the arrival of three F-4 Phantom IIs...

Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawker_Siddeley_Harrier, RAF Museum https://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/blog/harriers-over-falklands/
Similarly, Harrier GR3s briefly served in an improvised air defence role as No. 1435 Flight in the Falkland Islands shortly after the conflict's end; these too were rapidly replaced with Phantom IIs (source, RAF Museum as above, Kris Hendrix, 18 May 2022).

If Sea Harrier losses had meant that they couldn't deliver sufficient air defence for the Falklands task force, Harrier GR3s would have been used (the small total number of Sea Harriers meant there were few replacements available); Wikipedia as above

Had additional Sea Harriers been lost, Harrier GR.3s would have been reassigned to air patrol duties, despite not being designed for air defence operations.

These uses /planned uses of (non-Sea Harrier) Harriers as air defence aircraft were short-term expediencies (and arguably a little desperate).
(It is possible the small Harrier force in Belize in the 1980s would have served as counter-air fighters if necessary: much of Belize was claimed by neighbouring Guatemala, whose modest air force had little air-to-air capability).

This didn't apply to the mainland UK, and no Harriers ever served as Quick Reaction Alert aircraft there (or in West Germany), and so would be unlikely to be tasked to check out uninvited visitors. Again; there was a QRA station at constant readiness just under 50 miles from Calvine; it had Phantom IIs and Tornado ADVs.

 

[Andreas]

I would really like to hear your thoughts on the "secret US reconnaissance platform" hypothesis.

To be clear from the outset, I'm personally convinced that the entire thing is a hoax created using small models. That said, I'm currently working on an article about the case (and my attempts to recreate the scene using miniature models) for a Swedish magazine, and I've spoken with both Nick Pope and David Clarke. Obviously, their views differ significantly. Pope appears fairly convinced that this was some kind of "ultra-secret" US project, very much in keeping with his broader outlook. Clarke, on the other hand, is a far more down-to-earth character, and his main hypothesis seems to be that it's a hoax—although he still regards the "secret military platform" idea as a possibility. Clarke bases this partly on an interview he conducted with a Defence Intelligence officer who claims to have been directly involved in the investigation in 1990–91. Clarke wrote the following in an email to me:

I have spoken to the Defence Intelligence/DI55 officer who says he conducted the investigation at the time and was directly involved in the analysis of the photos. What he says does suggest that a very thorough investigation was conducted at the time (e.g. 1990–91); it's just that Nick's section of the MoD were not involved as they did not have sufficient security clearance.
My contact is 100% certain that (a) the photos are not hoaxed, and (b) the 'object' was identified by the MoD as a secret US reconnaissance platform operating over Scotland with two escort aircraft. From what he tells me, there were indeed detailed studies conducted by JARIC and another MoD agency at the time. I can't prove what this person told me, and due to the nature of his employment I cannot name him, as he is concerned about the Official Secrets Act. What I am certain about is that he is who he says he is and that he was the DI UFO officer at the time (1990). So you will have to take my word for it.

When I followed up with Clarke, he acknowledged that there are several problems with this hypothesis, saying:

Like you, I found it difficult to accept what the intelligence officer said about it being a US platform. I actually said to him at the time that I found that hard to believe—particularly the idea that something like this could be kept secret for 30+ years.

To me, this hypothesis simply doesn't add up. First of all, there is a built-in paradox. If this really was a secret craft being tested over Scotland, then at least some elements within the RAF or MoD would already have known exactly what the photographer had captured. In that case, there would have been no need for any thorough photographic analysis at all. In other words, I struggle to see how an extensive image analysis aligns with the idea that this was something the military itself was testing. It just doesn't make sense.

As Clarke also points out, it's difficult to believe that a black project of this nature could remain secret for 35+ years without anyone talking. Such a craft would be obsolete by now, and many other top-secret projects from the same era are today openly displayed in museums.

Furthermore, if the photographer's account of the event is broadly accurate, then we know that no such craft existed in 1990—nothing capable of hovering silently for an extended period and then accelerating vertically at high speed. The witness could, of course, have exaggerated the story, but why would he? Photographing a strange-looking object in the sky would have been extraordinary in itself. There would have been no need to invent additional, extreme manoeuvres.

Finally, the "jet" presents yet another problem for this hypothesis. It's often claimed that we're looking at a Harrier, but I'm personally quite convinced that it's a Hunter. Either way, neither aircraft makes much sense as an escort for a secret prototype. No aircraft carriers were operating near Scotland at the time, which effectively rules out the Sea Harrier. That leaves the RAF Harrier GR.5 (possibly GR.7), a ground-attack aircraft that wasn't even equipped with radar for air interception. And an obsolete Hunter makes even less sense—surely such an aircraft would not be used to escort an important experimental platform.

These are just some of my thoughts on the matter. I'd really be interested to hear your views. In the article, I've dismissed this hypothesis, but I want to make sure I'm not being overly sceptical or unduly influenced by my own conviction that this was a deliberate hoax created by someone who wanted to prank the Daily Record.

 

[Mendel]

These are just some of my thoughts on the matter. I'd really be interested to hear your views.

I broadly agree with you. We haven't heard of any such craft, or anything with these capabilities, in 35 years.
Both provenance and provenience are shaky, i.e. we still don't know who took the photo, and where.

 

[JMartJr]

I broadly agree with you. We haven't heard of any such craft, or anything with these capabilities, in 35 years.

Yeah, nor additional sightings, nor any "spin off" tech. This seems unlikely.

 

[Andreas]

I broadly agree with you. We haven't heard of any such craft, or anything with these capabilities, in 35 years.
Both provenance and provenience are shaky, i.e. we still don't know who took the photo, and where.

Yeah, nor additional sightings, nor any "spin off" tech. This seems unlikely.

Yeah, but I completely understand why this hypothesis is tempting for some people. Clarke is a down-to-earth guy who doesn't entertain extraordinary explanations like ETs or time travellers, and we do know that black projects exist. However, when you really examine this possibility, it quickly becomes clear that it's almost as far-fetched as an alien spacecraft. The idea that the US was flying something like this in 1990 simply doesn't make sense. That's not how technological development works.

A craft capable of hovering silently in mid-air for several minutes and then accelerating vertically at great speed would represent an extraordinary technological breakthrough. The fact that such technology has never since been deployed in any operational aircraft makes the idea deeply implausible. To me, this notion is a direct offshoot of the rather fanciful Aurora stories.

More importantly, if this really were some ultra-secret prototype—secret enough to remain hidden from the public for 35+ years—why on earth would it be flown over populated parts of Scotland, clearly visible to anyone driving along the A9 or hiking in the surrounding countryside? We would expect hundreds, perhaps thousands, of sightings of such a craft. In reality, there are none.

 

[NorCal Dave]

A craft capable of hovering silently in mid-air for several minutes and then accelerating vertically at great speed would represent an extraordinary technological breakthrough. The fact that such technology has never since been deployed in any operational aircraft makes the idea deeply implausible. To me, this notion is a direct offshoot of the rather fanciful Aurora stories.

Agreed. The other problem is the UFO world's insistence on "breakthrough technology". They often talk about the possibility that the US has achieved some sort of breakthrough, maybe by reverse engineering crashed UFOs, or that Russia and China have made breakthroughs that we need to take seriously. I'd argue it's a trope, with the transistor being invented shortly after the supposed Roswell crash as the extreme example.

I'm no engineer, but I don't think there is any such thing as "breakthrough technology" in the sense that someone devised a possible anit-gravity theory and a few years later there is a secret anti-gravity craft buzzing Scotland. It doesn't work that way. Technology, particularly in aviation, moves along incrementally with each new iteration having its antecedents. Yes, advancements can come along rapidly and things can be developed in secret, but the U2, the A12/SR71, the F117 stealth and the B2 all trace their lineage back to the Kitty Hawk Flyer. The Flyer and an F35 both use some sort of power source to move the craft forward in the air so that the wings can use the Bernoulli effect to create flight. It's 100 years of constant refinement on that basic design. Same with Artemis, it's a tiny capsule with people in it on top of a giant-ass chemical rocket just like Apollo from 60 years ago. There is no "breakthrough technology".

At least most stories involving Aurora fell into the incrementally improved technology category. Aurora is the supposed follow on to the A12/SR71. If Lockheed could create those aircraft with their specs in the '60s, surely they have made better sense. But it's still an aircraft in the modern sense just flying higher and faster.

In addition, IF this was some sort of advanced secret stealth craft that was deployed in 1990, it would have been developed back in the '80s or possibly even the '70s. Meaning the advanced technology supposedly on display is 40 to 50 years old. And still secret. As for the notion that it was new technology being tested over Scotland, that just makes no sense. No offence to my UK friends, but even if someone like BAS had a super advanced radar, at the very least it would be brought over to someplace like Area 51 where this kind of testing went on all the time.

Even more in addition, IF this were some sort of advanced aircraft that was deployed, at some point they are no longer secret. Regardless of what it was, it's still a mechanical bit of technology that needs servicing, fueling, training and so forth. They are often deployed to forward bases. The U2 was developed in secret, but once it was deployed, the CIA knew it couldn't be kept secret so its existence was quietly acknowledged with a cover story about it being a NASA research plane. Once deployed, the A12/SR71, the B2 and the F117 were all acknowledged. Something like this can't be flown all over the place and kept secret for 30+ years.

Lastly, the photo doesn't exist in a vacuum. IF Linsday is to be believed, there is a specific backstory to the photo describing the situation when it was taken, where it was taken (sorta) and details about how it moved. Obviously, this is all 2nd hand from Linsday, and according to him the information was conveyed over the phone from whoever was on the other end of the line. That person has never been located. All of it is sketchy at best.

Nice to see Clarck has come around to the "likely hoax" idea, as he did seem pretty convinced of the secret air craft theory for a while. good luck with your article and please provide a link for us when it's out.

 

[Ann K]

A craft capable of hovering silently in mid-air for several minutes and then accelerating vertically at great speed would represent an extraordinary technological breakthrough.

But of course not every trial is a winner; that's why they're called "trials". In the (I think) very unlikely event that this thing existed and worked, it might have proved to be too expensive, too much of an energy hog to work except for very brief times, too much subject to catastrophic failure, too difficult to control, etc.

 

[Mendel]

But of course not every trial is a winner; that's why they're called "trials". In the (I think) very unlikely event that this thing existed and worked, it might have proved to be too expensive, too much of an energy hog to work except for very brief times, too much subject to catastrophic failure, too difficult to control, etc.

If it worked enough to make to the Highlands and back, it did a lot better than the Avro hovercar ever did.

 

[John J.]

I would really like to hear your thoughts on the "secret US reconnaissance platform" hypothesis.

Yes, broadly agree with your take.

The idea that the US was flying something like this in 1990 simply doesn't make sense. That's not how technological development works.

A craft capable of hovering silently in mid-air for several minutes and then accelerating vertically at great speed would represent an extraordinary technological breakthrough. The fact that such technology has never since been deployed in any operational aircraft makes the idea deeply implausible.

Totally agree.
Outside of Ufology and assorted claims without evidence, there's no credible evidence of a large powered aircraft capable of hovering and near-silent rapid acceleration to high speeds. Or high-speed crewed aircraft of any type that are anywhere near silent in powered flight.

Minor caveats (more personal opinions, really):

If this really was a secret craft being tested over Scotland, then at least some elements within the RAF or MoD would already have known exactly what the photographer had captured. In that case, there would have been no need for any thorough photographic analysis at all.

The "UFO desk" per se appears to have been a very small operation (possibly one RAF officer and one MoD civil servant at some times; I could be wrong, but very few staff). We know (IIRC) they could request analysis from JARIC (the former Joint Air Reconnaissance Intelligence Centre) as the National Archive materials included a request for new drawings and scale estimates. But it might be unlikely that the UFO desk personnel would be advised of any particularly advanced/ exotic prototypes if any existed (which I doubt). -The "need to know" principle.
Similarly, if JARIC, or another intelligence asset, were able to identify the Calvine object as a secret craft known to them or which was suspected to exist, it might be unlikely they would tell the UFO desk, which wouldn't be able to share that information anyway.

Either way, neither aircraft makes much sense as an escort for a secret prototype.

Agree to some extent, it certainly wouldn't make sense to use Hunters (which were not in front line service) or RAF (GR) Harriers as interceptors.
Sea Harriers were based at RNAS Yeovilton in SW England between shipboard deployments, but were not tasked as part of UK air defences while there.

But a chase plane (as opposed to an interceptor/ air defence aircraft) doesn't need air intercept radar as it's not going to shoot at anything, and the pilot/ crew knows roughly where the "target" is (hopefully within sight and on camera).

NASA has used chase planes to escort/ monitor experimental aircraft (and the Space Shuttle):
NASA's T-38 Talon chase planes are pretty basic aircraft; the T-38As lack radar, more extensively equipped T-38Ns have weather radar (Wikipedia, Northrop T-38 Talon, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_T-38_Talon). I don't think they can carry underwing stores (unlike e.g. a Harrier) so there's limited growth potential for additional cameras/ optics etc.

NASA T-38 chase planes (L) with Space Shuttle, (R) with B-52 launching an X-15 rocket plane (dark object under the fuselage).

Playing devil's advocate (I don't believe this has any connection to anything in the Calvine photo!) twin-seat Hunters, used to train Buccaneer crews, were stationed at RAF Lossiemouth just 69 miles/ 111 km away from Calvine. Small numbers of Hunters were in use as trials aircraft by the Aeroplane and Armaments Experimental Establishment (A&AEE, Wikipedia) and the Royal Aircraft Establishment (RAE, Wikipedia) sometimes with modifications or carrying experimental equipment; if despatched to Lossiemouth for whatever reason they would have appropriate logistical support there. A&AEE/ RAE might reasonably have been involved in the evaluation of a new aircraft type.

If a chase plane were required to keep a steady "eyes on" for a prototype aircraft conducting a test flight that involved rapid flight and hovering, the best candidate might be a Harrier. As well as the frontline users, A&AEE/ RAE operated small numbers of Harriers. British Aerospace (now BAE Systems) had 2 or 3 GR5s as development/ trials aircraft.
We know there were Harrier GR5s (well, at least one!) at RAF Lossiemouth, 69 miles from Calvine, 23 days before the claimed sighting
(photograph posted here, Original Calvine UFO Photo thread)., from RAF No.1 Squadron.

There is a major problem with this hypothesising: As @Andreas and others have pointed out, there's no evidence that a large, silent, fast-flying, hover-capable aircraft existed in 1990, or exists now come to that. Such a craft would have been a major project, would require a number of technological breakthroughs and no doubt would be very expensive (and that's assuming such a craft is possible at our current level of technology, which is doubtful, particularly the "silent" part). But nothing remotely like it has been seen in service, 35 years later.

As for the notion that it was new technology being tested over Scotland, that just makes no sense. No offence to my UK friends...

Totally agree. BAE Systems (then British Aerospace) doesn't have the resources of e.g. Lockheed or McDonnell Douglas/ Boeing; it wouldn't be able to fund a major new military aircraft type unless it received substantial funding from a government willing to invest billions of dollars for a specific need. Excepting first generation Harriers and Hawk trainers, all the warplanes built by BAE since the early 70s have been international collaborations. The defence budgets of UK/ other European countries are probably not large enough to hide multi-billion dollar programs.
In fairness to BAE, the Taranis Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicle technology demonstrator is/ was one of theirs (Wikipedia, BAE Systems Taranis)-
-but its test flights took place at the Woomera test ranges in Australia, well away from the public.

We can be pretty confident any advanced, high-performance US prototype would be trialled in a similarly remote location, like Area 51, which was chosen for that purpose. (Admittedly hanger space might be limited by all the crashed UFOs stored there since 1947).
Major US defence contractors might have the resources to build something remarkable in secrecy, but perhaps not something with the reported characteristics of the Calvine UFO- and certainly not 35 years ago.

It must be extremely unlikely the Calvine account describes a prototype military aircraft of 1990, so even if the jet aircraft in the photo(s) were real, it must be equally unlikely that it/ they are chase planes for a prototype military aircraft with the characteristics described. It's not credible that they're air defence assets intercepting an unidentified UFO.

 

[Andreas]

Lastly, the photo doesn't exist in a vacuum. IF Linsday is to be believed, there is a specific backstory to the photo describing the situation when it was taken, where it was taken (sorta) and details about how it moved. Obviously, this is all 2nd hand from Linsday, and according to him the information was conveyed over the phone from whoever was on the other end of the line. That person has never been located. All of it is sketchy at best.

The information doesn't rely solely on Lindsay's decades-old recollections; a brief description of the testimony already appears in the handwritten memo declassified by the MoD. The account itself strongly suggests to me that this is a straightforward hoax. The narrative is classic "UFO sighting 101": a mysterious object hovering motionless before suddenly zipping off into space. If we are to take the witness at his word, this is essentially what he claims to have seen—and that simply doesn't make sense.

But of course not every trial is a winner; that's why they're called "trials". In the (I think) very unlikely event that this thing existed and worked, it might have proved to be too expensive, too much of an energy hog to work except for very brief times, too much subject to catastrophic failure, too difficult to control, etc.

Possible, but technology this far ahead of its time should have found its way into other aircraft or drones. When you look at the UAVs that were actually flying in the 1990s, they resemble Fred Flintstone's car by comparison with a diamond-shaped object capable of hovering and moving vertically, without any visible engines or wings.

But it might be unlikely that the UFO desk personnel would be advised of any particularly advanced/ exotic prototypes if any existed (which I doubt). -The "need to know" principle.

This is indeed true, but I still have some difficulty with this idea. When a request for further analysis was made in the autumn of 1991, JARIC responded within a couple of months with (rather crude) line drawings. But if this really had been a top-secret craft, important enough to be kept secret for 35 years, I'm sure the case would have been flagged as something that should not be handled by civilian staff such as Pope. More importantly, photographs would not have been retained by civilians like Craig Lindsay, and they certainly would not have been pinned to a wall where visitors could see them. The fact that no one ever contacted Lindsay to ask questions or even to check whether he still had the photographs suggests to me that the case was never treated as particularly sensitive. Instead, we see civilian employees carrying out the work: Lindsay, who says he contacted the witness, and staff at the UFO desk who requested the negatives.

It must be extremely unlikely the Calvine account describes a prototype military aircraft of 1990, so even if the jet aircraft in the photo(s) were real, it must be equally unlikely that it/ they are chase planes for a prototype military aircraft with the characteristics described. It's not credible that they're air defence assets intercepting an unidentified UFO.

I totally agree with this. To me, it's more important to note that this occurred just as the mass hysteria surrounding the so-called "Belgian UFO wave" had begun to fade. Stories about F-16 jets being scrambled to intercept mysterious triangular objects had been widely reported in the media, and this strikes me as a likely source of inspiration for a hoaxer in Calvine.

 

[John J.]

But if this really had been a top-secret craft, important enough to be kept secret for 35 years, I'm sure the case would have been flagged as something that should not be handled by civilian staff such as Pope. More importantly, photographs would not have been retained by civilians like Craig Lindsay

I think that's a fair point, particularly about Lindsay -I'm not sure if it was clear that anyone knew he kept a copy, but if it was important, someone should have asked him.

 

[NorCal Dave]

The information doesn't rely solely on Lindsay's decades-old recollections; a brief description of the testimony already appears in the handwritten memo declassified by the MoD.

Just to clarify, over in the main thread on the photo (this one was supposed to just be about possible ways to hoax the photo) there was a lot of discussion about the original hand written memo. IF Lindsay's claims are mostly true as reported to Clarke, then it seems likely he was the only point of contact for the RAF and he either wrote the memo or someone in his office did. If that's the case, Lindsay is still the only source for any of the backstory, both then and now.

There were always a few questions I wish Clarke had asked, or at least I'm not unaware if he did.

1. Did Lindsay physically write the memo? If not who did? He claims to have "typed" up a report, so maybe it's just a confused memory.
2. Did any other RAF personal ever officially talk to the supposed photographer? There is the supposed Intell officer with a 2nd hand claim that someone did speak to the photographer(s) at a later date and they said they were poaching, that's why they had a camera. Make no sense at all. And there is the fanciful Hollywood style claim of chef Richard Grieves about MiB types showing up many days later. But again, makes no sense.
3. Is there any record anywhere of anyone at the Daily Record talking to the photographer? Obviously someone did, as the photo(s) were sent, but did any actual reporter go look into the case?

Again, aside from some dubious and anonymous claims, Lindsay seems to be the sole source of anything about this photo.

 

[Andreas]

Just to clarify, over in the main thread on the photo (this one was supposed to just be about possible ways to hoax the photo) there was a lot of discussion about the original hand written memo. IF Lindsay's claims are mostly true as reported to Clarke, then it seems likely he was the only point of contact for the RAF and he either wrote the memo or someone in his office did. If that's the case, Lindsay is still the only source for any of the backstory, both then and now.

There were always a few questions I wish Clarke had asked, or at least I'm not unaware if he did.

1. Did Lindsay physically write the memo? If not who did? He claims to have "typed" up a report, so maybe it's just a confused memory.
2. Did any other RAF personal ever officially talk to the supposed photographer? There is the supposed Intell officer with a 2nd hand claim that someone did speak to the photographer(s) at a later date and they said they were poaching, that's why they had a camera. Make no sense at all. And there is the fanciful Hollywood style claim of chef Richard Grieves about MiB types showing up many days later. But again, makes no sense.
3. Is there any record anywhere of anyone at the Daily Record talking to the photographer? Obviously someone did, as the photo(s) were sent, but did any actual reporter go look into the case?

Again, aside from some dubious and anonymous claims, Lindsay seems to be the sole source of anything about this photo.

Yeah, I know we shouldn't really discuss this in this thread, but in a way, all the fanciful and imaginative interpretations of the documents and backstory are part of the hoax itself. When I've presented my recreations of the photos, some people (including Nicke Pope) have said, "Sure, it looks good, but I'm sure the MoD would have spotted such a hoax, given that they conducted an extensive investigation." But the fact is that the documents released by the MoD strongly indicate that the investigation carried out in the autumn of 1990 was far from thorough. I'm convinced the photos were hoaxed, and the hoax lives on because "believers" keep repeating the same incorrect claims about the documents and testimonies.

I'm not sure whether Lindsay ever claimed that he wrote the handwritten memo. It could theoretically have been him, but that's quite unclear. Lately, I've had quite a lot of contact with David Clarke, and I can ask him if he knows. Personally, though, I find it unlikely that the document was written by Lindsay.

I've really tried to make sense of this document, and a few things can be said. First of all, it was likely not written immediately after Lindsay was contacted by the Daily Record. Whoever wrote it had time to check the weather, and we can also read: "…pictures passed to RAF Pitreavie and Scottish Daily Record. Original negatives then passed to Daily Record." I find it hard to believe that Lindsay would have used this wording, as it's not a very accurate description of what actually happened—namely, that six photos were handed to the Daily Record, which made a black-and-white reproduction and sent that to RAF Pitreavie.

The detail about the negatives is also interesting. The memo states that the negatives were handed over to the Daily Record, and it suggests this happened after RAF Pitreavie received their photo. This makes sense, as the negatives finally arrived at the MoD on September 10, more than a month after the alleged sighting.

In other words, it seems likely to me that the memo was written by someone at Sec(AS)2a, and that this person does not appear to have spoken directly with the "witness". It's obviously possible that Lindsay alone was the source of the information in the document, but something tells me that the writer had also spoken to someone at the Daily Record. They would have had to contact the newspaper when requesting the negatives, and by the time the memo was written, the author was clearly aware that the negatives had actually been handed over to the newspaper.

It's interesting to note that no telephone number for the witness is given in the memo, while Lindsay's number is clearly stated. Likewise, it's noteworthy that Lindsay claims no one ever contacted him to ask questions about the case. To the best of my knowledge, Sec(AS)2a rarely carried out field work. (Perhaps Lindsay simply attached a brief summary of the testimony when faxing the photo, and that was the extent of his involvement.)

As for the Daily Record, everything here is based on decades-old recollections and should therefore be taken with a large grain of salt. Clarke has spoken to former news editor Malcolm Speed, who claims that photo editor Andy Allan showed him the photos just before he left for his annual summer holiday. When Speed returned, he was told by Allan that the photos had been sent to the RAF, who allegedly said "they were fakes." Honestly, though, recalling specific details after several decades seems unlikely. I don't think we will ever know whether any journalist actually spoke to the "witness," but if I had to guess, I don't think so.

 

[John J.]

The only contact details on the memo are probably Craig Lindsay's.
If anyone else had written this, there's no indication of who they are, where they work or how to contact them.
How would the sender get a response?

The middle redacted name (which precedes "RAF Press Officer Pitreavie MHQ") has two letters with descending features, possibly indicating the name is "Craig Lindsay" (orange circles, above).

David Clarke's article for The Daily Mail (12 August 2022, "Revealed after 32 years, the top secret picture one MOD insider calls 'the most spectacular UFO photo ever captured'", link via Wayback Machine) can be interpreted as supporting the middle name being Lindsay's;

Although the sparse MoD papers on the Calvine sighting were declassified, the names of the photographer (and Craig Lindsay) were removed from the file under Data Protection laws.

Working at RAF Pitreavie Castle, it might have been relatively easy for Lindsay to find out the weather conditions for 4th August 1980; as well as roles in co-ordinating some naval and land-based maritime aircraft operations, Pitreavie Castle was the coordination centre for Search And Rescue helicopters for Scotland, Northern Ireland and much of England, a service then provided by navy and air force helicopter units.

I like reading David Clarke's work, and I'm sure he's a good guy, but he did describe Lindsay as "a retired RAF officer" in the article he wrote for The Daily Mail (Wayback Machine link above) which I feel was misleading in that context.

 

[Andreas]

The only contact details on the memo are probably Craig Lindsay's.
If anyone else had written this, there's no indication of who they are, where they work or how to contact them.
How would the sender get a response?

I totally agree that the name deduced is that of Lindsay, but the name appears under the "witnesses" section, and to me that doesn't indicate that he's the author. I also don't think anyone was meant to "answer" the document as such. It seems more like a simple memorandum — a kind of working note written in haste — which would be consistent with someone at Sec(AS)2a having written it. Heck, the author even misspelled Pitreavie.

To me, assuming that Lindsay wrote the document implies an assumption that Sec(AS)2a would have handled the matter in a more careful and thorough way. Personally, though, I think we're seeing the entire investigation in plain sight here: a civil servant at the "UFO desk" scribbling down a few notes on a plain sheet of paper.

I like reading David Clarke's work, and I'm sure he's a good guy, but he did describe Lindsay as "a retired RAF officer" in the article he wrote for The Daily Mail (Wayback Machine link above) which I feel was misleading in that context.

Yeah, I agree. Even though he isn't wrong per se, it does give the story more credit than it really deserves. I suppose Lindsay found this particular case interesting enough to keep the photo all these years, even though he threw most of his work material away. But frankly, it's impossible to recall details accurately after several decades. It's hard to know what are genuine memories and what might be things Lindsay has gradually constructed in his mind over the years while telling and retelling this old story from his time at Pitreavie Castle.

To summarise, this discussion is important for the hoax thread because it tells us something about the scope of the initial investigation. When ideas are presented suggesting that this was a relatively simple hoax using small models—perhaps a kite, perhaps a Christmas ornament—believers often argue that "the MoD would have spotted such a hoax." To me, that simply isn't true. Instead, I think the initial investigation in September 1990 was brief and somewhat hasty, and when the case was reopened in November 1991 (by which time Pope had started working at the UFO desk), no high-quality material remained to be analysed. The fact that VU foils, rather than original high-quality photographs, were sent for analysis tells its own story.

 

[Andreas]

There were always a few questions I wish Clarke had asked, or at least I'm not unaware if he did.

I've now asked Clarke about the memo and he answered this in an email:

"We are confident the hand-written memo was written by Owen Hartop, Nick Pope's predecessor as UFO desk officer at Sec(AS)2… …his handwriting has been recognised as belonging to him by a source.
IMO the memo was written during or after a phone conversation with Craig Lindsay, as an aide memoire, for further action, late in August or early September 1990."

 

[NorCal Dave]

I've now asked Clarke about the memo and he answered this in an email:

"We are confident the hand-written memo was written by Owen Hartop, Nick Pope's predecessor as UFO desk officer at Sec(AS)2… …his handwriting has been recognised as belonging to him by a source.
IMO the memo was written during or after a phone conversation with Craig Lindsay, as an aide memoire, for further action, late in August or early September 1990."

While not Earth shattering, that is a nice little detail I would have expected to be noted somewhere before now. So I guess the story is something like this, though the detailed chronology is still a bit vague:

• Some photos show up at The Daily Record. Possibly after first being sent to the more local Edinburgh Evening News.
• Since there is what appears to be a Harrier or Hunter in the photos, The Daily Record contacts the nearest RAF information office for comment where Linndsay is the point person.
• Lindsay reports the photos onto Sec(AS)2 desk in London and they request a copy.
• Per Lindsay and London's request, a photo is produced for Lindsay to fax to London. This is the photo that exists.
• At some point, maybe before reporting to London, Lindsay calls a hotel near Calvine and speaks to the supposed photographer. This is the familial backstory we now know.
• Lindsay claimed to Clarke that he typed up a report of some kind, but that has never been seen.
• The details from the Calvine hotel phone call are relayed via phone by Lindsay to London where Hartop writes the hand written memo.
• After London sees the faxed copy of Lindsay's photo, a request is made for the original photo/negatives.
• Lindsay passes the photo/negative request onto The Daily Record and they(?) directly send the negatives onto London, ending Lindsay's involvement.
• The Sec(AS)2 desk sends the negatives onto other experts who make some viewfoils and do some analysis.
• A memo is typed up summarizing the case and points out there were no Harriers in the area at the time. Some talking points for the press are included.
• The photo(s) are never published.
• At a later date, Lindsay travels to the London office where he sees copies of the 6 photos, the poster size photo mentioned by Nick Pope and is told the original negatives were returned to The Daily Record. The negatives are never recovered.
• The photo gets a bit more analysis in 1991 as part of some Parliamentary hearings mostly about US spy aircraft (SR71) overflights and operations in the UK and some UFO stuff.

Maybe? I'll note somewhere in the 40+ pages of the original photo thread, there is mention of one of Clarke's articles claiming someone went up to Piltochry and spoke to the supposed photographer, but I don't what this is based on. For the most part, the backstory comes from Lindsay.

believers often argue that "the MoD would have spotted such a hoax." To me, that simply isn't true.

Agreed. But even if they did spot a hoax, they may not have come right out and said that.

Somewhere in the original thread I think there is a discussion of "ministry speak". The idea that like all bureaucrats, people in the MoD write in a cover-your-ass style and that this is taken to an extreme in the UK. No report would ever say "this was a hoax" or rudely suggest some citizen's photograph was a deliberate hoax. Rather, the report suggests, in a roundabout way, that the photo was impossible giving the details about it. There were no Harriers in that area at that time, so one can draw their own conclusions.

But two of the people in charge back in the day are on record saying it was a "spoof" and that it might have fooled some MoD for a while. Air Commodore Simon Baldwin and Sir Donald Spiers:

When I [David Clarke] spoke to Baldwin he dismissed the theory that the object in the photograph was a Stealth aircraft. He believes the whole story is a spoof – the same word he uses in a memo sent to MoD in December that year that I obtained using the Freedom of Information Act.

Baldwin believes the story – and the photographs – were the result of an elaborate hoax that briefly fooled the intelligence services.

He says the photographs – one of which he saw – depict 'an airborne Loch Ness Monster'.

Baldwin's involvement is revealed in a series of letters he sent to London whilst Air Attache during 1992, copies of which I obtained using the Freedom of Information Act. One was addressed to Sir Donald Spiers, Controller of Aircraft at MoD, a 3-star rank at the time.

The prank explanation was confirmed by Sir Donald, a former Assistant Chief Scientist RAF. He said that he recognised the black and white image from the MoD files as the same one he saw at the time. There was, he said, 'no doubt that the photograph was a spoof,' a conclusion he claims is based upon analysis by 'our technical experts

https://drdavidclarke.co.uk/2021/07/31/the-ufo-that-never-was-the-calvine-photographs/

It would seem these are guys that were in the know and are on record thinking it was a hoax of some sort. All the guys talking about secret aircraft are anonymous and off the record.

 

[John J.]

"We are confident the hand-written memo was written by Owen Hartop, Nick Pope's predecessor as UFO desk officer at Sec(AS)2… …his handwriting has been recognised as belonging to him by a source.
IMO the memo was written during or after a phone conversation with Craig Lindsay, as an aide memoire, for further action, late in August or early September 1990."

Thanks Andreas, I was convinced the memo was a cover note faxed by Lindsay, but your new information seems entirely plausible.
I'm obliged to change my views in the light of evidence, presented in a clear and sensible way- I'll never get my dream career in Ufology!
If it was a descriptive note written "in house" to be filed with the photos, its maybe understandable that it didn't have the writer's contact details.

he did describe Lindsay as "a retired RAF officer"

Yeah, I agree. Even though he isn't wrong per se...

Um, while I'm being a little pedantic, I think describing Lindsay as a retired RAF officer in that context was wrong.
He retired after many years as a civil servant for the Scottish Office/ MoD; while some UK civil service grades had "officer" in the job title (e.g. Administrative Officer, Executive Officer) those titles were used across departments (e.g. the ministries for education, health, agriculture) not just defence.
Lindsay's role was as a civilian working in support of the RAF, but he wasn't in the RAF, so he couldn't be an RAF officer or other rank.

I don't know if Lindsay had been a serviceman at some time before joining the civil service.
Born c. 1939 (Clarke's August 2022 Daily Mail article says he's 83) Lindsay may have been conscripted, UK conscription of (many but not all) 18 year-old men ended in 1960; equally he might have volunteered for some years as a young man but this brief biography doesn't suggest this:

Craig Lindsay was born in the Scottish town of Kilbirnie. His career began with short stints as a journalist at the Dalkeith Advertiser and the Fife Herald. In the 1960s, he left the world of journalism to work in the PR departments of the Scottish Tourist Board and Vauxhall Motors. He eventually became a civil servant by joining the Scottish Office. During this period, he covered several tragedies, including the Chernobyl disaster. Lindsay joined the Royal Air Force's Scotland and Northern Ireland division as a PR officer in 1989. The very next year, he became the first official to talk to one of the two chefs who allegedly encountered a UFO in Calvine.

The Cinemaholic website, "Craig Lindsay: Where is the Retired RAF Officer Now?", Sumith Prasad, 31 December 2024 https://thecinemaholic.com/craig-lindsay/

Lindsay retired in July 1999, so approx. 10 years as a civil servant working in support of the RAF; Clarke wrote

Mr Lindsay, a pragmatic, logical former civil servant who spent ten years in the military, is convinced the image — and the frightened man he spoke to on that day — are genuine.

The "ten years in the military" probably refers to Lindsay's 10 years as a civil service public relations man for the RAF; if so it is inaccurate as he wasn't in the military (i.e. a serviceman for the RN/ Royal Marines, Army, RAF) at any point during this time.

 

[deirdre]

Thanks Andreas, I was convinced the memo was a cover note faxed by Lindsay, but your new information seems entirely plausible.
I'm obliged to change my views in the light of evidence, presented in a clear and sensible way-

oh it wasnt plausible when i said it a year or two ago, but now that an anonymous source says he recognizes the handwriting then youre all in. smh

 

[John J.]

The photo gets a bit more analysis in 1991 as part of some Parliamentary hearings mostly about US spy aircraft (SR71) overflights and operations in the UK and some UFO stuff.

More likely the Parliamentary questions were about the (probably fictitious) Aurora than SR-71, which was well-known.

On September 1st 1994 in a well-publicized flight, an SR-71 flew from New York to London in just under 1 hour 55 minutes; the plane was then on display at the Farnborough airshow; see "New York to London in a Flash: A Look at an SR-71 Record Flight", The Aviationist website, Darrick Leiker 23 Dec. 2025 https://theaviationist.com/2025/12/23/new-york-to-london-sr-71-record-flight/, SR-71 listed as an exhibition aircraft at Farnborough, 1974 by the Farnborough Spotter website https://farnboroughspotter.weebly.com/1974.html

SR-71s operated from RAF Mildenhall in England from 1976 to 1990,
Wikipedia articles Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_SR-71_Blackbird; RAF Mildenhall https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Mildenhall (Quote and pic below), there was a permanent 2 ship detachment from 1982-1990
("The USAF SR-71 Blackbird Program" https://www.thesr71blackbird.com/History/USAF-Operations/mildenhall-england-det-4-operations).

The next significant event in Mildenhall's history came with the arrival of Detachment 4, 9th Strategic Reconnaissance Wing (9th SRW) in 1976, which controlled rotational U-2 and SR-71 Blackbird operations from the base.

Found UK Parliamentary questions about "Aurora" from 1992 and 1995; couldn't find anything earlier (1991) but that doesn't mean there weren't any (if they lacked certain keywords they'd be hard to find; I tried "Aurora", "Machrihanish").
What I found isn't very enlightening;

7 July 1992, House of Commons, Defence questions, written answer

Mr. Redmond
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many times the radar operators at RAF Machrihanish have detected the new United States aircraft Aurora during the last 12 months; and if he will list by location where it has been detected by other RAF radar monitoring stations.

Mr. Archie Hamilton
The existence of such an aircraft would be a matter for the United States authorities.

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/1992-07-07/debates/6224cb82-441a-477a-9c5e-b8f89207adc9/Aurora

26 January 1995, Commons, Defence questions, written answer

Mr. Llew Smith
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Aurora prototype aircraft of the United States air force are based at the Machrihanish air force base in Argyll; and for what period permission has been given for basing these aircraft in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Soames
There are no United States air force prototype aircraft based at RAF Machrihanish and no authorisation has been given by Her Majesty's Government to the United States air force, or any other US body, to operate such aircraft within or from the United Kingdom.

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commo...d60-9807-f5359c5651f3/AuroraPrototypeAircraft

30 January 1995, House of Lords, written answer

Lord Kennet
asked Her Majesty's Government: Whether it is the case that the secret US reconnaissance aircraft known as Aurora has been flying in British airspace given that the previous answer to this Question (col. WA14) referred an "experimental" aircraft, which Aurora is not.

Lord Henley
The existence of any secret US aircraft known as "Aurora" would be for the United States Government to confirm. No authority has been given for any such aircraft to fly over the United Kingdom or to land in this country and we have no evidence to suggest that such an aircraft has.

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Lords...ec-b63d-9ed7c8bf706d/UkAirspaceAuroraAircraft

Additionally,

Briefing notes given to the then defence secretary Tom King on March 4 1992 show that civil servants did give the idea credence. "There is no knowledge in the MoD of a 'black' programme of this nature, although it would not surprise the relevant desk officers in the Air Staff and [Defence Intelligence Staff] if it did exist."

"Is it a bird? Is it a spaceship? No, it's a secret US spy plane", The Guardian, 24 June 2006, James Randerson, via Wayback Machine
https://web.archive.org/web/2016120...ience/2006/jun/24/freedomofinformation.usnews

Without getting into all the stuff about (the possibly mythical) Aurora, several claimed sightings include details such as triangular shape, sonic booms, ground tremors (in the US) and "doughnut"-shaped contrails/ exhaust product. There's some discussion on Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurora_(aircraft)

Aurora is a rumored mid-1980s American reconnaissance aircraft. There is no substantial evidence that it was ever built or flown and it has been termed a myth.

The things claimed to be evidence of Aurora do not feature in the Calvine claims.
Some credible aviation enthusiasts (e.g. former Jane's editor Bill Sweetman) take the Aurora claims seriously, but don't credit it with the ability to hover or fly silently AFAIK.

Both with Aurora and the Calvine diamond (if it's hypothesized it was a secret US aircraft), there is no evidence that either of these revolutionary aircraft were ever used in service or developed into some other capability over the past 35 years. Not one unambiguous photo, no hint of losses (U-2s were shot down; SR-71s had to make unscheduled emergency landings in countries where they didn't operate, 2 out of 6 Space Shuttle orbiters lost) which might be expected of ultra-high performance aircraft, no one (credible) claiming to have been aircrew or groundcrew.

 

[John J.]

oh it wasnt plausible when i said it a year or two ago

Apols if I overlooked this.



Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DE3r_CgScms

 

[Andreas]

The "ten years in the military" probably refers to Lindsay's 10 years as a civil service public relations man for the RAF; if so it is inaccurate as he wasn't in the military (i.e. a serviceman for the RN/ Royal Marines, Army, RAF) at any point during this time.

I agree—he should probably have been referred to simply as a civil employee or a press contact, and nothing more. The strangest thing to me is Lindsay's claim that he conducted some kind of active investigation, calling the witness and so on. Why on earth would he do such a thing? At the time, it would obviously have been impossible for him to know whether this was some kind of secret craft or something else related to national security. In other words, there was no reason for him to get involved.

I can see only two possibilities: either Lindsay carried out this investigation on his own initiative, out of pure curiosity, or the story about the phone call never actually happened. I'm not suggesting that he is deliberately lying, but it could be a case of false memory. Stranger things have happened, especially given that he was asked about the incident some 30 years after the event. Perhaps he made a phone call regarding some other matter and later conflated the two; or perhaps he was told about the phone call when speaking with the Daily Record.

This is, of course, speculative, but since we have no documents confirming such a phone call, it's difficult to say whether it ever took place at all.

oh it wasnt plausible when i said it a year or two ago, but now that an anonymous source says he recognizes the handwriting then youre all in. smh

Haha—yes, I can happily confess that you were right all along. After studying the documents in detail, it's now incomprehensible to me why I ever believed that Lindsay wrote the memo. It simply wouldn't make any sense.

More likely the Parliamentary questions were about the (probably fictitious) Aurora than SR-71, which was well-known.

Hmm—yeah, I don't understand why there would have been a hearing about the SR-71 in 1990. And do we have any source confirming that the 1991 investigation of the vu-foils was triggered by parliamentary questioning? The imagery tasking form dated 28 November 1991 appears to have been authored by someone at DI55, but that seems to be all we know. And those rather crude line drawings were provided by JARIC as a response on 29 January 1992.

 

[deirdre]

Haha—yes, I can happily confess that you were right all along.

well i may not be right. i would need to see other handwritten material by Owen (since i'm a handwriting expert).. but its plausible.

 

[John J.]

On September 1st 1994 in a well-publicized flight, an SR-71 flew from New York to London in just under 1 hour 55 minutes

Too late to edit, that should have read 1974.

 

[Andreas]

well i may not be right. i would need to see other handwritten material by Owen (since i'm a handwriting expert).. but its plausible.

You're right — it's impossible to say for certain whether the document was written by Hartop without handwriting samples or similar evidence. Still, it's a plausible idea that fits the context. More importantly, though, I would argue that we have no evidence supporting the claim that the memo was written by Lindsay, whereas several circumstances suggest that he was not the author.

Does it really matter? I think it does. If the memo was written by Hartop after a telephone conversation with Lindsay, then the information in it was likely first given by the witness (hoaxer?) to the Daily Record, who then relayed it by phone to Lindsay, who in turn passed it on to Hartop in yet another phone call. It could hardly be more like a game of Chinese whispers.

 

[deirdre]

Still, it's a plausible idea that fits the context. More importantly, though, I would argue that we have no evidence supporting the claim that the memo was written by Lindsay, whereas several circumstances suggest that he was not the author.

i know. thats why i said it in the first place

It could hardly be more like a game of Chinese whispers.

that seems a bit too far to me. hard to imagine lindsay didnt take notes when talking to the daily record.

i see no reason to try and discredit the 'known' facts,it's not like the world is taking this photo all that seriously. (probably because it doesnt look metallic, it looks like a moldy ravioli some kid hung from a tree to goof on the Daily Record and make a few bucks).

 

[Andreas]

that seems a bit too far to me. hard to imagine lindsay didnt take notes when talking to the daily record.

Perhaps you're right — it's just that his behavior strikes me as a bit odd. A civil employee responsible for handling press relations calling a witness and conducting what appears to be active investigative work. We must also remember that this took place more than 30 years before Clarke reached out to him with his questions, and that at the time, Lindsay no longer had any notes.

 

[deirdre]

Perhaps you're right — it's just that his behavior strikes me as a bit odd. A civil employee responsible for handling press relations calling a witness and conducting what appears to be active investigative work. We must also remember that this took place more than 30 years before Clarke reached out to him with his questions, and that at the time, Lindsay no longer had any notes.

i would maybe phrase it as "preliminary investigative work". doesnt seem odd to me personally, at least in America things were more chill in the early 1990s.