Claim: Original Calvine UFO Photo

[Dave51c]

Yet it still manages to be better quality than the Calvine photo, despite being taken in a hurry on a cloudy day with a very cheap and nasty 20 year old camera....

In analog photography, as you probably know, there are a *lot* of variables which contribute to the quality of the final print independent of the type of camera used. Here are some: lens quality, exposure (within the films dynamic range), film processing quality, film quality (amateur colour emulsions were not brilliant), film flatness, enlarger focus, darkroom processing, paper flatness, enlargement factor etc etc.

Your nice landscape can't really be used as a measure as such IMHO, but I understand what you are saying. To reduce variables, we really would need to see the original negative.

I also started with an Instamatic camera (when I was 12 years old) - thanks for the trip down memory lane.

 

[Scaramanga]

It is indeed of very poor quality. But the problem is that we simply don't know what the original photo looked like. What we have today is a 35-year-old copy — a photo of a photo. I agree that the poor quality was hardly caused by the picture being taken in a hurry. However, the Daily Record made a cropped black-and-white copy of what was presumably a color photograph. And at least to me, Lindsay's copy appears somewhat bleached.

Sure.....but my Lake District image is from a scan of an original 3 inch by 3 inch print...also 35 years old. Kodak basic prints were small in those days. That loses some of the detail and any blur or lack of focus is magnified with it then being displayed at 16 times its original area size on my 40 inch screen. Yet it still manages to look crisper and clearer than the Calvine photo.

 

[Scaramanga]

In analog photography, as you probably know, there are a *lot* of variables which contribute to the quality of the final print independent of the type of camera used. Here are some: lens quality, exposure (within the films dynamic range), film processing quality, film quality (amateur colour emulsions were not brilliant), film flatness, enlarger focus, darkroom processing, paper flatness, enlargement factor etc etc.

Your nice landscape can't really be used as a measure as such IMHO, but I understand what you are saying. To reduce variables, we really would need to see the original negative.

I also started with an Instamatic camera (when I was 12 years old) - thanks for the trip down memory lane.

Just for reference...this is the camera. It does not get more basic. No focus settings at all. Very basic mechanical shutter. Just two light settings....sunny or cloudy. If I recall correctly, sunny was 1/40th of a second and cloudy was 1/25th.

I would imagine cameras had improved by 1990 !

 

[Andreas]

That's one way for sure, but the grain structure under magnification would make that easy to detect, especially along the edges of the stuck on paper.

True. However, if we assume Lindsay's copy was created by "taking a photo of a photo", how exactly would that affect the grain pattern? The grain that Robinson confirms is consistent with Ilford XP (or similar) must be a result of the copying process. How much of the original grain would actually be visible in the copy?

On the other hand, one might argue that the MoD should have noticed this. But we don't really know whether any extensive analysis was conducted in the fall of 1990. And a year later, when the investigation was resumed, no material of better quality than the poor vu-foils seems to have been available.

Personally, I still think the "models on strings" hypothesis is the most likely explanation, but I'm not sure we should rule out photo manipulation as a possibility.

 

[JMartJr]

Yes indeed. Assuming the jet was traveling at around 400 knots, the photographer would have had only a very brief window to capture the shots:

But recall that a Harrier can travel extraordinarily slowly.If it is in fact a Harrier, it can even hover, or back up!

Source: https://youtu.be/3nYXdVjPUG4?t=225


(It now occurs to me to wonder if that is why they identified it as a Harrier--if it did not move much or at all from frame to frame, what else could it be? Assuming you did not want to make a hoax "accusation,"that is...)

 

[deirdre]

if we assume Lindsay's copy was created by "taking a photo of a photo",

why would they take a photo of the photo when they had the negatives?

but I'm not sure we should rule out photo manipulation as a possibility.

we shouldn't rule out any of the possibilities. (except maybe the u.s. military test driving a top secret new hover technology shaped like a diamond over miles upon miles of scottish countryside!)

 

[deirdre]

(It now occurs to me to wonder if that is why they identified it as a Harrier--if it did not move much or at all from frame to frame, what else could it be? Assuming you did not want to make a hoax "accusation,"that is...)

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/claim-original-calvine-ufo-photo.12571/post-276585

 

[Andreas]

But recall that a Harrier can travel extraordinarily slowly.If it is in fact a Harrier, it can even hover, or back up!

A Harrier can either hover or fly as a conventional aircraft. However, it cannot bank while hovering, and the "jet" in the photo appears to be banking. Also, if the witness had described it as "a jet was hovering next to the UFO," I'm sure this important detail would have been noted by the MoD. Instead, it is recorded that the aircraft "made a number of low-level passes." Furthermore, I don't think we can say for sure that it is a Harrier. Personally, I don't believe it is — but that's another discussion.

why would they take a photo of the photo when they had the negatives?

Nothing in the available documentation indicates that the Daily Record had access to the negatives at that time. On the contrary, the handwritten document explicitly states that the photos were "passed to RAF Pitreavie and the Scottish Daily Record. Original negatives then passed to the Daily Record."

 

[John J.]

The mention of a "second aircraft" could mean that two aircraft were visible in one of the frames.

Or more than one other frame?

However, it seems just as plausible that the jet is only clearly visible in the frame copied for Lindsay, while in one of the other shots a small, blurry spot was interpreted as a second aircraft. In the remaining four shots, there may have been no visible jet at all.

The only evidence we have for a 2nd aircraft (or model/ cut-out image etc. of a 2nd aircraft) in any of the other photos/ negatives is the MoD minute.
It states that the negatives were "considered by the relevant staffs".
We don't know, but it would seem likely that this would be a photograph interpretation unit, possibly (at the time) JARIC.
If this was the case, I think it's unlikely that a small blurry spot that might be mistaken for an aircraft would be described as "probably a Harrier".

The minute states that there was no record of Harriers operating in that area at the time; if whoever looked at the negatives knew that (they might not have) then I think there's less chance of bias toward assuming it was a Harrier. It was compiled for the attention of a government minister, the Under Secretary of State (Air Force), so perhaps some effort was made to ensure accuracy.

On the admittedly very limited evidence we have, I don't think we can confidently assume that there wasn't a second jet (or representation of a jet) in one or more of the other negatives.

If there were two jets, it doesn't change much: Perhaps a more elaborate hoax, but still a hoax.

 

[Dave51c]

However, if we assume Lindsay's copy was created by "taking a photo of a photo", how exactly would that affect the grain pattern?

Ah sorry, I was thinking here about @Scaramanga 's comment where one would be looking at the first stage copy of a photographic print with the 'UFO' paper stuck on it and perhaps I'm assuming looking at the negative under controlled inspection.

In analog copying, the grain patterns become 'stacked'. That is one super-imposed over the other. There is a characteristic pattern to the film emulsion and the photographic paper also has a grain pattern, but usually has a more visible texture to it from the underlying paper used to which the photo-sensitive coating is applied. This under microscopic inspection.

It's tricky for sure. When I was making duplicates I used a very slow speed Kodak film (sorry, can't remember the product code) which was ISO 6 IIRC and incredibly low grain because one didn't want to superimpose another course gain pattern over the original.

The grain that Robinson confirms is consistent with Ilford XP (or similar) must be a result of the copying process. How much of the original grain would actually be visible in the copy?

That's cool that he identified the grain structure. Ilford XP (or the later XP2 Super?) (a chromogenic - C41 colour process negative B&W film) would not be my first choice for a professional duplication. Being a C41 emulsion it has dye couplers and not silver halide grains, but is quite fine grained. [1] I've personally shot a ton of XP2 Super.

Not being a photographic analyst, I'm not sure how much grain would be visible. I guess it would require being able to 'look through' the grain of the second generation print/negative by some sort of subtractive process.

But just curious, but what does this add to the investigation though? Are you trying to verify something?

[1]

XP2 SUPER is a chromogenic film. This means that the dyes which make up the image are formed during

development rather than being present in the film or added later.

https://www.ilfordphoto.com/amfile/file/download/file/1909/product/704/

 

[NorCal Dave]

why would they take a photo of the photo when they had the negatives?

As @Andreas noted above, they may not have had the negatives at the time. But even if they did, I think this was a standard way to create B&W copies of color photos as the paper published both. The device was literally called a "copy stand" and it mounted a camera vertically above a table where the photo being copied was placed. You can still buy them today:

And they didn't have to be super high resolution copies, just good enough for the morning edition that would likely be looked at once before being used for puppy training. As Iv'e speculated, a B&W would have made more sense for faxing as well.

 

[Mendel]

One more thing. We often assume a great deal about the additional five photographs — not least that the "jet" is visible in several of the frames, moving across the scene. I was quite convinced this was the case, but I'm not so sure anymore.

I don't believe we have any trustworthy testimony from anyone who claims to have seen all six photos. Nick Pope has made quite a few claims over the years, but obviously those statements should be taken with a grain of salt. I recently spoke to Nick about this, and in my view, it seems highly unlikely that he ever saw the original photographs at all — only photocopies.
In other words, we are left with what is written in the MoD files. In the Loose Minute, we read:

"They 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."

But does this really tell us that we see the jet in several frames? In the image we have access to, we do see a jet-like silhouette traveling from right to left. The mention of a "second aircraft" could mean that two aircraft were visible in one of the frames. However, it seems just as plausible that the jet is only clearly visible in the frame copied for Lindsay, while in one of the other shots a small, blurry spot was interpreted as a second aircraft. In the remaining four shots, there may have been no visible jet at all.

I'm not claiming that this is the case — only that it highlights the problem of making assumptions about the additional five frames.

1) Calling the barely-seen Harrier a 'second aircraft' means that the clearly visible Harrier is seen in the same photo. Otherwise, they should have considered that these were two shots of the same aircraft.

2) "They show a large stationary, diamond-shaped object past which, it appears, a small jet aircraft is flying." The use of 'they' would be misplaced if the jet was only visible in one of the pictures. Both the use of the pluaral pronoun and the concept of the pictures showing motion (fly-past) strongly imply several frames with the jet in different positions.

I believe that the photos would have been described differently if the one we know was the only one in the set that showed the jet clearly.

 

[Andreas]

But just curious, but what does this add to the investigation though? Are you trying to verify something?

Well, it's often claimed that the grain pattern is consistent and shows no sign of manipulation — in other words, that the UFO hasn't been cut into the scene. But if the copy was made using film with prominent grain, wouldn't that "hide" some of these clues, making the scene appear more consistent? Especially if the copying process was done somewhat hastily and the focus was slightly off?

 

[Dave51c]

why would they take a photo of the photo when they had the negatives?

That's a good question. Sorry, I'm not fully up to speed on all the ins and outs of this, but was it just for convenience perhaps.

For distribution to interested parties, paper prints were the de-facto method (no external hardware needed to view). Also, negatives that are considered first generation, none replaceable evidence should be handled accordingly and not passed from pillar to post where they will get lost, scratched, covered in dust and god knows what.

 

[Dave51c]

But if the copy was made using film with prominent grain, wouldn't that "hide" some of these clues, making the scene appear more consistent? Especially if the copying process was done somewhat hastily and the focus was slightly off?

Yes, I think it would, and the type of thinking given the photographic technology at the time. I wonder what someone with the right tools and expertise could do today? Hopefully there is someone in the NSA or in GCHQ reading this and saying 'hold my beer'!

 

[NorCal Dave]

That's cool that he identified the grain structure. Ilford XP (or the later XP2 Super?) (a chromogenic - C41 colour process negative B&W film) would not be my first choice for a professional duplication. Being a C41 emulsion it has dye couplers and not silver halide grains, but is quite fine grained. [1] I've personally shot a ton of XP2 Super.

But as discussed somewhere up thread, Robinson later changed his mind on that identification of XP, deciding the grain wan't nearly as fine as he originally thought. I found this somewhat confusing and, to my mind, a big red flag.

Robinson's original report claimed it was a B&W print made on color paper and he identified very fine grain consistent with Illford XP. The argument seemed to be, the photographers may have been looking to shoot "artsy" B&W landscape photos using XP which was fine grained AND could be developed with the C41 process. Most important, it was this analysis that claimed the grain patterns made any sort of hoax highly unlikely, thus the claim it shows some secret aircraft. This analysis was the crux of the argument.

However, in the long YouTube presentation linked some 40 pages ago, Robinson changed his mind. He said the grain wasn't as fine as he originally thought. Huh? How does one study a photo with a microscope, determine it has very fine grain consistent with XP, then go back and say it wasn't all that fine and was consistent with standard B&W film?

In either situation, it always came across as if Robinson was analyzing one of the original photos, which is inconsistent with the MoD notes stating they were color photos. I don't remember any discussion of the possibility, likely I would argue, that this is a photo of a photo. It was made on the Daily Records copy stand at Lindsay's request. Robinson was analyzing a copy, possibly made in haste, that only needed to meet the standards of '90s era newspaper publishing. Something his later conclusion about it being made with ordinary B&W film is consistent with.

 

[Andreas]

I believe that the photos would have been described differently if the one we know was the only one in the set that showed the jet clearly.

I understand your point, but I'm not entirely convinced. If you identify one aircraft silhouette in each of the six frames, you could technically say that you've identified six aircraft. Likewise, identifying one aircraft in one frame and a blurry "aircraft-like" dot in another frame could be described as identifying "another aircraft." It depends on what you're actually talking about - the physical aircraft or the silhouette seen in the photo.

 

[Andreas]

Robinson's original report claimed it was a B&W print made on color paper and he identified very fine grain consistent with Illford XP. The argument seemed to be, the photographers may have been looking to shoot "artsy" B&W landscape photos using XP which was fine grained AND could be developed with the C41 process.

I recently asked Robinson about this, and he said that the original photos were most likely standard color photographs, and that Lindsay's photo was a black-and-white copy made from one of those color prints. I guess the idea of some artsy photographers experimenting out in the Scottish countryside doesn't apply anymore.

 

[Ann K]

Frame rates of manual cameras with electric winder or motor drive of the time were very slow - 2 to 4 fps typical - the high end Nikon F4 maxed out at 5.7 fps. On a manual wind 35mm SLR maybe one frame every 2 sec if you are quick.

You are assuming ONE plane, when we have been told that pilots were known to have trained in low level flying by following each other down a loch. If more than one plane traveled that path, there's no need to worry about the time between shots.

 

[Andreas]

You are assuming ONE plane, when we have been told that pilots were known to have trained in low level flying by following each other down a loch. If more than one plane traveled that path, there's no need to worry about the time between shots.

It depends on which scenario we're considering. If the photo is "genuine," meaning it's a snapshot of a strange large object being intercepted by a jet, then we do have a problem with the jet passing by so quickly. I also have a hard time understanding how the jet could show so little motion blur, if we are to believe the claim that the photo was taken just before sunset. Shutter speed should be something of an issue in that case. In different hoax scenarios, this is, of course, less of a problem. If you don't have a mysterious UFO to worry about, you can simply wait until a plane appears in the frame and press the shutter.

 

[John J.]

Likewise, identifying one aircraft in one frame and a blurry "aircraft-like" dot in another frame could be described as identifying "another aircraft."

But (sorry to harp on about this) a "blurry aircraft-like dot" wouldn't justify a description of "again probably a Harrier".
Not "an unidentified aeroplane", or "an unidentified swept-wing aircraft", "a fighter-type jet of undetermined type" or even "possibly a Harrier".
I feel "probably a Harrier" indicates that some features were visible.

 

[Andreas]

I feel "probably a Harrier" indicates that some features were visible.

Or one might argue that they based that assumption on the fact that the jet was most likely the same aircraft seen in the other shot

 

[Dave51c]

You are assuming ONE plane, when we have been told that pilots were known to have trained in low level flying by following each other down a loch. If more than one plane traveled that path, there's no need to worry about the time between shots.

Sure, one has more time to maybe (re)compose for the next pass and indeed if a previous jet had passed then there is a good chance the next one may have a similar track relative to the available field of view as in the photographer had good visual awareness going on outside of the viewfinder so could time the shot.

A fairly high shutter speed would still be needed to freeze the jet's motion as we see it. It's possible to use a slower shutter speed and pan track with the direction of the moving object but then any other stationary objects in the shot have motion blur.

So to me, without pan tracking, the jet in this single frame is either a lucky shot or maybe pre-composed as suggested if it is not the first aircraft. If the camera was held steady or on a tripod whilst a number of frames were exposed then maybe this is the best (only) image of both, or maybe just got lucky with a single click shot. Distance to target is key.

If it's real of course...usual caveats apply.

I'm really curious to know what the focal length of the lens was - I know, I'm late to the party and there are over 46 pages on this thread so it may be out there somewhere in the comments but I've lost track so I'm probably repeating what's gone before.

Military jets on low level training tend to not strictly follow each other in line astern due to wake turbulence unless the horizontal spacing is large enough to be safe (at that time the RAF was cleared to 250 feet AGL and I'm sure you do not want to suffer wind sheer at that altitude).
(Formation in trail is a low aspect view of the lead aircraft and the more common practice is to offset to keep the lead in more of a profile view by flying in echelon formation).

How do I know this - I used to live under a low level training route in Wales (Brecon Beacons) and our cottage was in line with an entry point to the valley and mountains behind us. The timing separation was approx 5-30sec between aircraft flying into this particular valley as singletons, so if there was more than one aircraft at Calvine then for sure there is time to reframe in anticipation and plan for the next one. (In my experience, separation timings varied on the topography of the various low flying areas.)

My newly born daughter at the time did not appreciate being woken up by the jets! Nether did we and as a photographer I didn't have the slightest interest in photographing the bloody things! (Despite being into planes and wanting to be a pilot as a kid having been born and raised on RAF bases).

But, if anyone is interested in fast jet photography and techniques then this video gives a little sense of the famous mach loop in mid Wales. The stills shown in the video exhibit pan tracking.

 

[Dave51c]

Military jets on low level training tend to not strictly follow each other in line astern due to wake turbulence unless the horizontal spacing is large enough to be safe (at that time the RAF was cleared to 250 feet AGL and I'm sure you do not want to suffer wind sheer at that altitude).
(Formation in trail is a low aspect view of the lead aircraft and the more common practice is to offset to keep the lead in more of a profile view by flying in echelon formation).

But of course they have to factor in the nearby UFO or whatever it could be. So, non-standard formation required chaps, tally ho!

 

[deirdre]

they may not have had the negatives at the time.

maybe. i guess im falling for the incredulity fallacy, hard for me to accept they would bother the MOD without having studied the negatives a bit themselves... but who knows.

And they didn't have to be super high resolution copies, just good enough for the morning edition that would likely be looked at once before being used for puppy training.

but did need to be good enough to get an id from the MOD. (although i cant explain why lindsey's pic would be a b&w if the original negatives were indeed color...unless they did know lindsay intended to fax it. )

add: interesting page i found, scan of [old]photo vs scan of original negative.
https://www.scanyourentirelife.com/scanning-your-film-negatives-vs-prints-interesting-comparison/

 

[John J.]

Or one might argue that they based that assumption on the fact that the jet was most likely the same aircraft seen in the other shot

I'm not sure I understand.

Does this mean whoever reviewed the photos/ negatives saw the plane we're familiar with, but on another photo there wasn't an image resembling that image of an aircraft, just the "barely visible" aircraft? And they assumed the single aircraft images in the two separate photos were the same individual aircraft? (Or model etc.)

If so (I might have misunderstood) I can sort of see that the wording of the memo might be consistent with that, but it would be a rather tortured use of language, and perhaps misleading phrasing for no obvious purpose.

I think

...established that the jet aircraft is probably a Harrier (and also identified a barely visible second aircraft, again probably a Harrier

would be understood by most readers as meaning that the photos appeared to show two separate aircraft.

 

[NorCal Dave]

but did need to be good enough to get an id from the MOD. (although i cant explain why lindsey's pic would be a b&w if the original negatives were indeed color...unless they did know lindsay intended to fax it. )

It's a bit convoluted, but I'm pretty sure the official MoD identification was made from the originals, not the copy. In fact we can probably say the MoD never saw this photo. Having seen the faxed version, they requested, and received, the originals from the Daily Record. Lindsay kept this copy for himself.

However, the handwritten note you posted again up-thread says Harriers, but it's unclear when that was written. I figured the B&W copy would have been easier for faxing, so that's what was made. Most of us can see a Harrier, or a Hunter, in the photo, so it's possible Lindsay passed on the idea of a Harrier when he faxed the photo to London, or he was just passing on what he was told over the phone and that information made it's way to the handwritten memo. I think Harriers were one of the more well known RAF aircraft of the time. Then the MoD confirmed the Harrier with the originals.

 

[deirdre]

It's a bit convoluted, but I'm pretty sure the official MoD identification was made from the originals, not the copy.

oh yea we do know they received negatives. since they returned negatives to the Daily Record. (and they were able to make out a second plane in at least one photo..i myself think the other photos sucked pretty bad because the alleged poster Nick had was of this photo, and the photocopy [or possibly fax?] in the mod files was this photo and this was the only photo Lindsay kept [or was the only photo Linday got]. meaning, seems liek everybody threw out all the other photos.

 

[Andreas]

It's a bit convoluted, but I'm pretty sure the official MoD identification was made from the originals, not the copy. In fact we can probably say the MoD never saw this photo. Having seen the faxed version, they requested, and received, the originals from the Daily Record. Lindsay kept this copy for himself.

Indeed. But the Harrier identification seems to have been there all along. Apparently, the witness believed the jet to be a Harrier and told this to the Daily Record, which forwarded this information to Lindsay, who then passed it on to Sec(AS)2a. I do think it's possible that the investigators were biased by this information, but obviously it's impossible to know.

My interpretation of the event is as follows. The witness hands over or sends the six photos to the Daily Record sometime in mid-August. While deciding what to do with the story, the photo editor contacts Lindsay for a comment. Lindsay can't really say anything over the phone and asks for a copy, preferably a black-and-white one, since he intends to fax it to London. A copy is made and sent to Lindsay. Unable to fit the stiff photo paper into the fax machine, Lindsay uses a photocopier to make a couple of copies on ordinary paper, then faxes them to Sec(AS)2a. He speaks on the phone with Owen Hartop (Pope's predecessor), who summarizes the case in the now-famous handwritten memo. They begin investigating the faxed photo (making a couple of vu-foils), but since the image is of extremely poor quality, it's impossible to draw any conclusions. They therefore decide to ask the Daily Record for the negatives. Apparently, the newspaper agrees to help, and on Monday, September 10, the negatives arrive by mail at Sec(AS)2a. The negatives are inspected and soon sent back to the Daily Record. On Friday of the same week, the Loose Minute is written, and the case appears to be settled, with no further investigation planned.

A year later, in November 1991, a new request is sent to JARIC, asking for a renewed investigation of the photo. But this baffles me somewhat, since the only material attached to the request consists of the very poor-quality vu-foils made from Lindsay's fax. The information requested is also extremely basic — namely, the shape and size of the object. It is obviously impossible to say anything meaningful about the size without access to anything beyond a low-resolution, heavily cropped photocopy.

To me, this indicates two things. First, the 1990 investigation seems to have been somewhat sloppy and conducted in haste. Second, no high-quality material appears to have been available for analysis in the fall of 1991.

But then we have the problem of the "poster." Both Pope and Lindsay have claimed to have seen it on the office wall, and according to Pope, it remained there for years. However, asking someone to investigate blurry photocopies when you supposedly have access to a poster-sized photograph simply doesn't make sense.

To me, this suggests two possibilities. Either the "poster" only remained on the wall for a short time and was discarded before November 1991, or the poster wasn't quite what people have claimed. Perhaps it was merely an enlargement of the photocopy. Who knows.

I do know one thing: I asked Pope about the poster and his "CGI recreation" of it. I told him that, to me, the recreation looked as if it had been made by someone who had seen the vu-foils but not the actual photograph. He maintained that his digital recreation was highly similar to the original photo, but that simply isn't the case. For someone who claims to have seen a large poster almost daily for years, it's somewhat strange not to remember the fence or the branches — and instead to place a generic Scottish landscape in the middle of the scene.

Interestingly, I also asked Pope about the Harrier, and he replied in an email: "I used a Harrier in the CGI recreation because that ties in with the official assessment in the MoD documentation. But I agree with you about a Hunter being a more likely option."

So, in other words, not even in the poster was a Harrier silhouette distinguishable?