Claim: Original Calvine UFO Photo

[Giddierone]

I think they didn't include the foreground trees and fence in the mock up photo because there are none on the path they walked for that photo (you'd have to scale a deer fence in order to get overhanging foliage in the shot. At Calvine there are basically two hills to walk to get up high, they chose the wide gravel one - the easier of the two. The other leading up to An Teampan is more winding (time consuming).

 

[Giddierone]

Yes. A black-and-white negative created when black-and-white film was loaded into the repro camera. They had a color photo, took a B&W repro photo of it, developed the film, and had it printed on color paper.

I'd missed that part. So, given it's a photo of a photo that seems to make Robinson's statement about film grain redundant:

The film grain distribution suggests that no negative or print based manipulation of the image has taken place and that the image is a genuine representation of a scene in front of the camera.

So, there's no good reason to assume it's represents what was in front of the actual camera.

 

[jon_eir]

I think it's valid to consider the claim that a poster of the Calvine "UFO" was visible for some years at Sec (AS) 2a, and that Nick Pope saw it there. We know Pope was involved in the Channel 5 program and may have given input on the object's appearance based on his claim.
That is why I mentioned the mock-up. I was very sceptical of Pope's account, but on reflection perhaps less so.

Nick pope "claimed" to have saw it there, he "claimed" there was a poster and he "may" have had input into the recreation. Pope refused to comment on whether the photo this thread is about he had actually seen. It may be a valid conversation in it its own right but is this thread the place to have it- Thread title is "Original Calvine UFO Photo"

-I put that to you earlier with the supporting quotes.

"I'm asking what are the grounds for speculating about the artist recreation given the title of this thread

Neither the MoD nor Nick Pope has commented on the provenance of the Craig Lindsay image, and Nick Pope has neither confirmed nor denied that it's one of the originals that he had access to at the MoD

if you think its valid address all the counter points I made maybe?

from nick own sites states he "teamed up with a graphic artist" to make the mock up you are discussing. whether anyone else was involved, what input/creative license the graphic artist or influence production had we dont know, remember it was a tv show. The identities of the other two MoD colleagues is unknown.

Neither the vu-foils the photocopies or recently uncovered photo have the fore/background that's in the recreated image. The fence line is only in the most recently recovered photo. I just think just too much speculation has to be done to infer anything about Pope what may or not may have seen and what these images show

what about the the fact that the recreation had foreground and background. No imaged you showed had that. Did that come from the poster? Did that come from Pope or aritst or production team? Did it stop at just the background being added with context or without. how do you reconcile all that?

this thread feels like a conversation where two people are talking past each other and its way off the titled subject

 

[Andreas]

I'd missed that part. So, given it's a photo of a photo that seems to make Robinson's statement about film grain redundant:

The film grain distribution suggests that no negative or print based manipulation of the image has taken place and that the image is a genuine representation of a scene in front of the camera.

So, there's no good reason to assume it's represents what was in front of the actual camera.

I asked Robinson about this specifically:

Email from Andrew Robinson, August 13, 2026:

I looked at this in my 2024 report - We should have two grain patterns overlain on each other - one from the original film and one from the B/W copy but it would be very hard identify this in a resulting print.

The Lindsay print has a fairly course grain present across the entire image however it's not possible to know if this is from the original film or from the copy film.

The film grain across the whole print is not in sharp focus - this blur could have been introduced in four ways:

• the print machine making the original print (at a Chemist or photo lab) was slightly out of focus (highly unlikely as this would have auto focus and the prints would be checked before being supplied)
• the camera making the copy print was slightly out of focus (most likely - fairly easy to do on a copy stand when quickly making a copy)
• the camera making the copy print was moved during copying (possible however unlikely as the grain blur isn't movement blur - its focus blur)
• the enlarger making the copy print was out of focus (unlikely as this was a mini-printer which again would have had auto focus)).

And regarding the possibility of a cut-and paste hoax, he answered in the same email:

The copying process of the single Lindsay print might further disguise an existing cut and paste however such a montage would need to have been convincing on all six original images to pass MoD scrutiny and not be relieved in the poster sized enlargements so I don't think the production of the Lindsay print has much relevance here - If the UFO is a cut and paste it would need to be convincing in the originals.

I can see no evidence of cut and paste and I've inspected the grain distribution across the edges of the UFO and this shows continuous grain with no disruption.

Using a cut and paste technique to insert a UFO into a series of genuine fine grain photos of a plane flying past and then rephotographing this on a film with higher grain to disguise the join would be possible and could be hard to spot however to do this in 1990 using analogue techniques sufficiently successfully to convince numerous people including image analysts would be complex, time consuming and require professional equipment.

I would imagine that if you were studying the original negatives (rather than the Lindsay copy print) you would be able to see evidence of this especially when the negative is enlarged to poster size.

In other words, a cut-and-paste hoax wouldn't necessarily be detectable in Lindsay's crap-quality print. But Robinson argues that the MoD should have detected traces of such a hoax when examining the original negatives back in 1990. The problem is that we simply don't know how much effort was put into the investigation.

Personally, I don't fully rule out some old-school cut-and-paste job, because I really don't think the MoD gave a rat's ass about hoax UFO photos or cared much about debunking them. After determining that the photos had no significance for national security, they probably just sent them back to the Daily Record with a polite "thanks, but no thanks."

 

[John J.]

What? I definitely can't see a "line" in Lindsay's copy of the photo.

Ah, good point. I was using an inferior copy.

 

[jon_eir]

It's up to each and every one of us to decide whether the CGI recreation was mainly based on the VU-foils or the actual photos. But to me, the answer seems quite obvious.

if its obvious state it? if you think its based of the actual photos address the lack of background/ foreground and fence line with supporting evidence? maybe could say you think Pope created the fore/background from false memories of the the poster and use that for his input. And that would be the larger point Im getting at-there is mountainous amounts of speculation going on here for a thread on the actual recovered photo

I think they didn't include the foreground trees and fence in the mock up photo because there are none on the path they walked for that photo (you'd have to scale a deer fence in order to get overhanging foliage in the shot. At Calvine there are basically two hills to walk to get up high, they chose the wide gravel one - the easier of the two. The other leading up to An Teampan is more winding (time consuming)

who is they? what path did they walk? if your talking about Pope, graphic artist and whoever else may have been involved in the "mock-up" do we know they even took a photo and used that in the recreation. Maybe some of that is in the channel 5 Doc but I havent seen any supporting evidence for that here?

 

[Andreas]

Nick pope "claimed" to have saw it there, he "claimed" there was a poster and he "may" have had input into the recreation. Pope refused to comment on whether the photo this thread is about he had actually seen. It may be a valid conversation in it its own right but is this thread the place to have it- Thread title is "Original Calvine UFO Photo"

You're making quite a lot of claims without providing any sources. I've spoken to Pope about this, and it's quite obvious that he never claimed to have seen Lindsay's low-quality repro photo. I don't think anyone except Lindsay himself had ever seen it before Clarke managed to dig it up. But Pope obviously claimed to have seen photographs made from the original negatives while working at Sec(AS)2a. Pope also often spoke about helping to create the CGI reconstruction based on his own recollections and the declassified material.

And regarding the discussion about the CGI recreation - of course it's relevant since it's closely linked to the photograph in question.

You shouldn't spread claims that only create confusion and don't contribute anything meaningful to the discussion.

 

[jon_eir]

You're making quite a lot of claims without providing any sources. I've spoken to Pope about this, and it's quite obvious that he never claimed to have seen Lindsay's low-quality repro photo. I don't think anyone except Lindsay himself had ever seen it before Clarke managed to dig it up. But Pope obviously claimed to have seen photographs made from the original negatives while working at Sec(AS)2a. Pope also often spoke about helping to create the CGI reconstruction based on his own recollections and the declassified material.

And regarding the discussion about the CGI recreation - of course it's relevant since it's closely linked to the photograph in question.

You shouldn't spread claims that only create confusion and don't contribute anything meaningful to the discussion.

i didnt make those claims im paraphrasing the quote above it. which was exactly my point.
if you now saw say he didnt see it how is the mock up closely linked to the photograph in questions?

Do you have a soucre for nick saying he did/didnt see it because i quoted his website where its states he has never publicly commented on it

https://nickpope.net/wpte19/the-calvine-ufo/?.com

Neither the MoD nor Nick Pope has commented on the provenance of the Craig Lindsay image, and Nick Pope has neither confirmed nor denied that it's one of the originals that he had access to at the MoD

edit:typo

 

[Giddierone]

who is they? what path did they walk? if your talking about Pope, graphic artist and whoever else may have been involved in the "mock-up" do we know they even took a photo and used that in the recreation. Maybe some of that is in the channel 5 Doc but I havent seen any supporting evidence for that here?

Whoever was given the job to create the mock up. I'm assuming they visited Calvine for the background shot used in it.

 

[John J.]

It may be a valid conversation in it its own right but is this thread the place to have it- Thread title is "Original Calvine UFO Photo"

-I put that to you earlier with the supporting quotes. "I'm asking what are the grounds for speculating about the artist recreation given the title of this thread

I appreciate that raising the possibility that the Channel 5 mock-up might be evidence that Nick Pope had indeed seen the original photo (or at least a copy of one of the original photos) is not the main point of this thread, but there have been minor divergences before (for better or worse).
If Mick or one of the moderators want to split off the thread, that's their decision which I would respect. Or you could start a new thread, but personally I don't see the point.

I am now less convinced in my theory that the recreation clearly shows indications that Nick Pope had seen the original photo or something similar, largely due to the well-argued points made by @Andreas, and Mendel. I still have some thoughts about it, though I doubt I'll be pursuing the matter! But I will almost certainly put forward incorrect or shaky theories in the future. It's possible others might too.

if you now saw say he didnt see it...

I think Andreas is saying Pope didn't claim to have seen Craig Lindsay's photo that was sent to him by The Daily Record. It's very unlikely that he did, as that copy remained in Craig Lindsay's possession.
Technically, I guess you're right that that copy of one of the original photos is the subject of the thread.
But Nick Pope might have been in a position to have seen the original negatives/ photos, or "in-house" reproductions of them (e.g. the claimed poster). Discussion of any information there might be about the originals has happened on this thread before, and I think is in the spirit of the thread.

 

[Andreas]

its obvious state it? if you think its based of the actual photos address the lack of background/ foreground and fence line with supporting evidence?

I think it's mainly made from the VU-foils.

 

[Andreas]

Technically, I guess you're right that that copy of one of the original photos is the subject of the thread.
But Nick Pope might have been in a position to have seen the original negatives/ photos, or "in-house" reproductions of them (e.g. the claimed poster). Discussion of any information there might be about the originals has happened on this thread before, and I think is in the spirit of the thread.

Yeah, I mean, it's essential to discuss the originals, and the VU-foils & CGI recreation, when determining whether Lindsay's copy is a reproduction of one of the alleged six original frames. I think it's highly relevant for the thread.

 

[Giddierone]

Does anyone have the relevent clip from Channel 5's "Alien Cover-Up" the sixth episode of the 2015 documentary series Conspiracy?

 

[jon_eir]

@John J. @Giddierone I think ill just bow out of this one. I'm unclear of what posters stances are on the recreation at this point. And how assumptions/speculations on it relate to the uncovered photo this thread was about.

I asked for clarifications on those points which I don't think were addressed directional and its also on posters to keep threads on point imo. Maybe I should have been more forthright when I first addressed its relevance here. It seems like a topic/issue that should have been discussed in its own right

 

[John J.]

I think ill just bow out of this one.

Don't feel obliged to bow out.
People are allowed to disagree and can make mistakes (er, I might have about the Channel 5 recreation. But don't tell anyone, I don't think anyone noticed).

I asked for clarifications on those points which I don't think were addressed...

It's fine to ask for clarifications, but perhaps remember no-ones obliged to answer. Demanding answers/ clarifications might not go down well (repeating them within a few hours, using bold characters).
IIRC you asked me something about the landscape in the Channel 5 mock-up, I thought @NorCal Dave and @Giddierone gave reasonable responses.
I was aware of the issue (oops, an "a" in the wrong place),

The landscape is not visible in the Vu-Foils, and the mock-up's visibly hilly landscape without nearby a fence does not really match the photo.

 

[NorCal Dave]

Email from Andrew Robinson, August 13, 2026:

I find it at least confusing, that the report he authored for Clarke, which sent Clarke off looking for a secret US aircraft, says something different. I would argue, it was Robinson's original report that almost completely ruled out a hoax due the "fine grain" of the photo, that got Clarke on the secret aircraft trail. They didn't consider a hoax a real possibility and weren't thinking real UFO, so secret aircraft. He went so far as to suggest it was created with Ilford X-P1, a boutique B&W film:

Conclusion - It is my considered opinion that the film used was Ilford XP-1 processed using C41 chemistry. This is consistent with the claimed heritage of the print. The choice of this fairly specialist film by the photographer should also be considered as it suggests an interest in, and knowledge of photography.

The grain is also consistent with that of Ilford's XP films which were well known for their fine grain properties. The grain is not sufficiently sharp enough due to the quality (sharpness) of the printing to allow more detailed analysis of grain shape which might help confirm the film typе.

Conclusion - The film grain is consistent with the film identified (XP-1) and suggests that no negative or print based manipulation of the image has taken place and that the image is a genuine representation of a scene in front of the cameraа.

Andrew Robinson photo analysis

This was walked back in a YouTube video a bit later (my bold):

"Originally I thought [XP1] might be a likely choice because it was a color print. XP1 you're processing colour chemistry and then you would print it onto colour paper. It was introduced in the 1980s by Ilford and it became quite popular in the 90s because a lot of labs didn't process black and white film anymore, so this is a way of shooting black and white imagery and getting it processed in a high street lab. However, when I've done a closer analysis of the grain [it] looks much more like the grain structure of a traditional black and white film rather than the grain structure of XP1 or XP2, which is a much finer and different kind of grain. So it's looking more like a traditional film."

the Disclosure Team Q&A video at 10.52 mins Andrew Robinson

But he was still maintaining the original photo was created with B&W film stock. Which is sorta true, as this is a B&W copy of the likely color original. Clarke and Robinson had the MoD notes that clearly state, twice, the originals were color. It seems the idea of this being a copy of some kind was never considered. If the original report had something like what is in your email correspondence, I wonder if this whole chase for a secret aircraft would have gotten off the ground:

I looked at this in my 2024 report - We should have two grain patterns overlain on each other - one from the original film and one from the B/W copy but it would be very hard identify this in a resulting print.

The Lindsay print has a fairly course grain present across the entire image however it's not possible to know if this is from the original film or from the copy film.

 

[Andreas]

I find it at least confusing, that the report he authored for Clarke, which sent Clarke off looking for a secret US aircraft, says something different.

Yes, this is indeed confusing. I have had a lot of discussions with Robinson about the case, and to be honest, I simply don't get it. My conclusion is that central parts of his original photo analysis no longer stand. And I agree—it's unfortunate that it led some people on a wild-goose chase for mysterious black projects instead of the more obvious explanations. There's always a lot of talk about large craft in the sky, but at the same time, he concludes on Substack:

https://anthologycouk.substack.com/p/string-theory-tangled-up-in-calvine-073:

The photograph may well be a hoax, and indeed both Dr David Clarke and I believe that, based on the evidence currently available, this is the most likely explanation…

 

[Andreas]

One more thought. Isn't it about time we stopped calling these two sheets "VU-foils"?

To the best of my knowledge, they're the line drawings produced by JARIC, based on the VU-foils. They're attached to the 29 January 1992 "RESPONSE TO ITP M AND S TASKING REQUESTS". JARIC was asked to produce line drawings of the object, and this was their response.

It might seem like a minor issue, but it actually makes a difference. Because this might have been the best JARIC was able to produce using the material available in 1991/92. They ended up with something resembling a Christmas tree lying on its side and a wonky rhombus drawn by a child — and yet some people argue that it's strange they somehow failed to detect the fishing wires.

Well… if the fishing wires were clearer than the actual object, perhaps they should have drawn those instead.

 

[John J.]

They look like low-quality photocopies.
The speckling/ 'grey' to the right of each image vaguely reminds me of the sort of results you used to get if maybe you were rushing to copy lots of documents, holding onto the edge of the copier lid with one hand ready to flip it open but inadvertently preventing it from shutting completely.
(Edited to add: Anyone else remember doing this?)
A line drawing could be photocopied onto some types of transparency. I guess a transparency image could be photocopied onto paper (IIRC).

 

[Andreas]

They look like low-quality photocopies.
The speckling/ 'grey' to the right of each image vaguely reminds me of the sort of results you used to get if maybe you were rushing to copy lots of documents, holding onto the edge of the copier lid with one hand preventing it from shutting completely.
A line drawing could be photocopied onto some types of transparency. I guess a transparency image could be photocopied onto paper (IIRC).

Yeah, it's difficult to say exactly what we're looking at. But we know for a fact that they were attached to the "RESPONSE TO ITP M AND S TASKING REQUESTS." And given that they were tasked with creating line drawings, and the fact that the sloppy diamond and lying Christmas tree are outlined, it's a fairly safe bet that these are the line drawings they produced.

Whether they were printed on paper or transparent film is another question, but it doesn't really matter. Because we know how they were produced: someone created a (hoax) UFO photo and handed it over to the Daily Record. → The newspaper made a sloppy repro photo and handed it over to Lindsay. → Lindsay made a photocopy using his office copying machine. → The copy was sent using a fax machine. → The fax was transferred to VU-foils, possibly using another copying machine.

And this was apparently the material chosen for the 1991 retasking.

To me, this indicates that no high-resolution material remained at the MoD when the investigation was resumed a year after the initial investigation. Obviously, I don't know, because I wasn't there. But I still think it's a low-odds bet.

 

[Mendel]

To the best of my knowledge, they're the line drawings produced by JARIC, based on the VU-foils. They're attached to the 29 January 1992 "RESPONSE TO ITP M AND S TASKING REQUESTS". JARIC was asked to produce line drawings of the object, and this was their response.

Yes, but these are no line drawings.

A fax machine might have had two or three modes, like text, line drawing, photo, and it might process the scan differently. A line drawing would enhance contrast (losing the clouds entirely), while photo mode might transform gray values to textures.

So I do think these are photocopies of some kind; not line drawings made with a pen.

 

[NorCal Dave]

Whether they were printed on paper or transparent film is another question, but it doesn't really matter. Because we know how they were produced: someone created a (hoax) UFO photo and handed it over to the Daily Record. → The newspaper made a sloppy repro photo and handed it over to Lindsay. → Lindsay made a photocopy using his office copying machine. → The copy was sent using a fax machine. → The fax was transferred to VU-foils, possibly using another copying machine.

Almost, maybe? I would think this is the fax that Lindsay sent, or a copy of it. I would hope any Vu-Foils that were studied, were produced from the actual negatives/photos in the MoD's possession. As you noted, maybe this was all that was left laying around by 1991, so it was passed off as many more than it was.

 

[Andreas]

Almost, maybe? I would think this is the fax that Lindsay sent, or a copy of it. I would hope any Vu-Foils that were studied, were produced from the actual negatives/photos in the MoD's possession. As you noted, maybe this was all that was left laying around by 1991, so it was passed off as many more than it was.

Yeah, I mean, this is the thing I have the hardest time with. If there really were poster-sized enlargements and high-quality photos lying around—perhaps even the negatives—why on earth would they use some crappy photocopies when asking for a renewed investigation in the fall of 1991? It makes no sense at all.

Personally, I highly doubt there was anything but the photocopies left to investigate in 1991. As for the alleged poster-sized enlargements hanging on various walls, I'm not convinced. There are lots of stories from people claiming to have seen them, saying they were huge, detailed, and in color. But still, no one seems able to say anything about what the diamond actually looked like, what color it was, or whether any surface details were visible.

And when I asked Pope about it, he was really vague. He also suddenly claimed that the poster he saw remained on the wall until 1994, even though he had previously said it was taken down years earlier.

It's hard to know what to make of the whole thing.

 

[Andreas]

Yes, but these are no line drawings.

But the RESPONSE TO ITP M AND S TASKING REQUESTS clearly states: "The attached form(s) have been actioned and copies are returned for your retention or disposal." And attached to the document are the two photocopies we refer to as the "vu-foils." When you look at them, they do seem somewhat outlined—not as if someone had traced around the objects with a pen, but more like the effect was produced digitally. I'm not sure what technique JARIC would have used back in 1990 when asked to outline an object in a photograph.

 

[JMartJr]

It's hard to know what to make of the whole thing

Just speaking for myself, I'd class witness testimony of a poster on the wall at a certain time and place at about the same level of value as witness testimony about seeing the UFO. Maybe more credible in that we know what posters are, how they'd be made, that they exist... But in terms of evidentiary value, there's not much there if all we have is witness memories rather than, say, the poster.

 

[Andreas]

Just speaking for myself, I'd class witness testimony of a poster on the wall at a certain time and place at about the same level of value as witness testimony about seeing the UFO. Maybe more credible in that we know what posters are, how they'd be made, that they exist... But in terms of evidentiary value, there's not much there if all we have is witness memories rather than, say, the poster.

I totally agree with you. We have the stories, telling us about posters, hidden material, and an extensive investigation. And on the other side, we have the actual evidence—the declassified documents—which tells us that the negatives were handed back after only a few days and that the 1991 retasking was conducted using low-quality photocopies. No real evidence suggests that any good-quality material, such as negatives or first-generation prints, remained at the MoD after September 1990.

 

[Mendel]

When you look at them, they do seem somewhat outlined—not as if someone had traced around the objects with a pen, but more like the effect was produced digitally.

Yes. Like a scan, with the scanner set to "line drawing". These are not line drawings, there was no pen, but a line enhancing algorithm could produce that "outline" effect.

No real evidence suggests that any good-quality material, such as negatives or first-generation prints, remained at the MoD after September 1990.

Except for the photo that has been re-discovered?
Except it's supposed to be second-generation.

 

[JMartJr]

No real evidence suggests that any good-quality material, such as negatives or first-generation prints, remained at the MoD after September 1990.

Except for the photo that has been re-discovered?
Except it's supposed to be second-generation.

Yeah, the word "good" there is subject to interpretation. Me, I'd agree the re-discovered picture is BETTER evidence than the older really terrible image -- but is not particularly good evidence of anything, as it could have been created in WAY too many ways.

 

[Mendel]

Yeah, the word "good" there is subject to interpretation. Me, I'd agree the re-discovered picture is BETTER evidence than the older really terrible image -- but is not particularly good evidence of anything, as it could have been created in WAY too many ways.

I wasn't talking about its qualities as evidence, merely as to its qualities as material. It's a lot better than the "vu-foil" copies, and pretty much rules out any LIZ-type explanations.

 

[Andreas]

Except for the photo that has been re-discovered?
Except it's supposed to be second-generation.

But the rediscovered photo wasn't in the hands of the MoD. Craig Lindsay faxed it to London, and after that, the whole matter was over for him. Apparently, however, he kept the photo for one reason or another. Lindsay was a civilian employee, and he didn't file the photo through any official channels. He even brought it home with him when he retired. Lindsay has said that no one ever asked him for the photo, and we have no reason to believe that anyone at the MoD realized he still had it.

So again, the fact that Lindsay happened to keep the photo after faxing it doesn't mean that the MoD had anything other than the low-quality photocopies when the 1991 retake was initiated.

 

[Mendel]

But the rediscovered photo wasn't in the hands of the MoD. Craig Lindsay faxed it to London, and after that, the whole matter was over for him. Apparently, however, he kept the photo for one reason or another. Lindsay was a civilian employee, and he didn't file the photo through any official channels. He even brought it home with him when he retired. Lindsay has said that no one ever asked him for the photo, and we have no reason to believe that anyone at the MoD realized he still had it.

So again, the fact that Lindsay happened to keep the photo after faxing it doesn't mean that the MoD had anything other than the low-quality photocopies when the 1991 retake was initiated.

If Lindsay was a civilian employee of the MoD in 1991, then the photo would still have been at his desk in the MoD. (I don't know when he retired.)
Your words were "remained at the MoD", so unless you claim his desk wasn't at the MoD, that phrase covers it.

 

[Andreas]

If Lindsay was a civilian employee of the MoD in 1991, then the photo would still have been at his desk in the MoD. (I don't know when he retired.)
Your words were "remained at the MoD", so unless you claim his desk wasn't at the MoD, that phrase covers it.

Well, you're obviously right per se. But it's irrelevant if one (or several) people kept a photo out of personal interest that no one else at the MoD knew about. It's possible that he still had it lying around somewhere in his office in the autumn of 1991; likewise, it's possible that he had already brought it home. Apparently, he considered it his personal property rather than something belonging to his employer.

So no, I don't think that a civilian employee who keeps a photograph out of personal interest, without telling any of his colleagues that he has kept it, can be taken to mean that the material "remained at the MoD" — especially not when this is being discussed in relation to the investigation conducted in 1991/92.

And we must remember: Lindsay's photograph was never actually investigated by anyone until Andrew Robinson carried out his photographic analysis of it. Sec(AS)2a only had access to it through low-quality photocopies transmitted via fax — nothing else.

 

[NorCal Dave]

If Lindsay was a civilian employee of the MoD in 1991, then the photo would still have been at his desk in the MoD. (I don't know when he retired.)
Your words were "remained at the MoD", so unless you claim his desk wasn't at the MoD, that phrase covers it.

Maybe. Or maybe he took it home with him after the case went away. Even if he had it in his desk, it was more of a personal trinket or souvenir. He never indicated that the MoD was aware of the photo. I would think if someone in the London offices knew he still had the photo in '91, they would have had him send it down, right? Someone must have sorta known he had a copy made to send the fax when the story started, but maybe no one remembered later.

 

[Andreas]

Maybe. Or maybe he took it home with him after the case went away. Even if he had it in his desk, it was more of a personal trinket or souvenir. He never indicated that the MoD was aware of the photo. I would think if someone in the London offices knew he still had the photo in '91, they would have had him send it down, right? Someone must have sorta known he had a copy made to send the fax when the story started, but maybe no one remembered later.

Agreed. He seems to have kept the photo out of personal interest, and he must have considered it his own personal property, since he even brought it home. Had there been the slightest doubt as to whether it depicted anything secret, I'm sure Lindsay wouldn't have brought it home.

And the important thing is this: we have no reason to believe anyone at the London offices ever knew he had kept it. And the photo was never investigated by anyone. Lindsay simply put it back in the Daily Record envelope, where it remained until David Clarke tracked him down decades later.

I find it a bit amusing that some people claim that perhaps the photos were considered "top secret" and were hidden away behind some wall of secrecy, available only to a select few with high-level clearance. I've even heard some people claim that this is why the VU-foils, rather than the high-resolution photographs, were used in the 1991 retasking. But if so, it seems rather sloppy to simply send the negatives back to the Daily Record, let alone allow Lindsay not only to keep his copy but also to bring it home when he retired.

Nah, to me, the available material indicates that the photos weren't taken seriously, and that's hardly surprising for a case referred to as a "UFO incident" in the handwritten memo. After all, the MoD didn't spend time and money debunking UFO photos.

 

[Giddierone]

I wonder if the "jet" was a happy accident captured during a double exposure hoax.

 

[NorCal Dave]

I wonder if the "jet" was a happy accident captured during a double exposure hoax. View attachment 93236

The guy was photographing the sky for a DE hoax and an aircraft just happened to fly through the scene? Some of us did speculate early on when Robinson's original report said the photo was likely shot on XP1 film, that the person may have had the knowledge and skills to do something like that. I know in the US at that time, a home darkroom with an enlarger and print developing equipment was popular with serious photographers, especially ones that worked in B&W. Color was doable, but IIRC, it involved more difficulty and expense.

So, if as Robinson claimed, the original was shot on a boutique B&W film by an experienced photographer, it seemed plausible they would know how to pull off a DE and may have had their own equipment to do it on. But, Robinson back-tracked from the XP1 claim, to regular B&W film and then eventually came around to agreeing that what we see is likely a B&W copy of a color photo.

A DE is a possibility, but the model in front of the camera is pretty straight forward with less steps and less chances of the hoax being seen. And it seems pretty likely that there were 6 photographs, so that would be 6 DEs with a lucky plane.

 

[Mendel]

I wonder if the "jet" was a happy accident captured during a double exposure hoax.

I think the scene is too bright for that to work?
The fence is really dark. And the clouds don't look doubly exposed, either.
And the MoD note says there were 6 different photos.

 

[Giddierone]

I think the scene is too bright for that to work?
The fence is really dark. And the clouds don't look doubly exposed, either.
And the MoD note says there were 6 different photos.

I think the scene is too bright because it's a double exposure. The 6 consecutive photos is a challenge though.

 

[JMartJr]

I think the scene is too bright for that to work?
The fence is really dark. And the clouds don't look doubly exposed, either.
And the MoD note says there were 6 different photos.

Yes, I'd say at most there might have been an outing to take a UFO pic, and some quick thinking to take advantage of some planes flying about, or there was an on-the-fly effort to grab some pics of planes, in which the panes were disappointingly small but present, and the idea to fiddle about and add a UFO in the darkroom led us to where we now are. But of course, if the UFO is fake, there is no strong reason to suspect the plane is real!

I know of no evidence to support either possibility, but there are so many different ways these pictures could have been produced without the need for any mysterious and inexplicable diamond shaped thing in the sky, there is not much justification for assuming they are genuine at this point.

 

[Andreas]

I wonder if the "jet" was a happy accident captured during a double exposure hoax.

I mean, compared to a hovering diamond being intercepted by an RAF fighter, I find a double exposure to be a more likely option. But to me, a double exposure is one of the less likely explanations in this case. As several others have already pointed out, the scene doesn't really look like a double exposure, and if there really were six original negatives, it would have been quite tricky to produce.

But this doesn't mean it couldn't have been created in the darkroom. A more straightforward explanation would be someone using some old-school cut-and-paste, reshooting the photos using a repro stand. The result would then be six sequential frames showing the same diamond, with the jet moving between shots. With the repro camera a bit out of focus, I think disruptions in the grain pattern could be effectively hidden. Early on when investigating the case, I had my suspicions that the whole thing was created using some old press photos of a Scottish landscape showing a low-flying jet. Perhaps even photos originally found in the DR archives But obviously, there's no proof of such a thing.

Still, I think cut-and-paste is a possibility, but personally, I find the models-on-strings hypothesis more straightforward.

I know of no evidence to support either possibility, but there are so many different ways these pictures could have been produced without the need for any mysterious and inexplicable diamond shaped thing in the sky, there is not much justification for assuming they are genuine at this point.

Indeed! And that's the whole point. With our current understanding of the case, it could be a hoax created using models on strings, a hoax created in the darkroom, or a reflection in a calm lake. It's even possible that it's not a pure hoax at all, but simply two drunken teenagers who mistook a mountaintop covered in clouds and mist for a flying object.

All these possibilities have one thing in common: they don't require anything extraordinary to have occurred. As long as we don't know the identity of the photographer or the circumstances surrounding the creation of the photographs, we have no reason whatsoever to assume that they depict a huge, hovering, diamond-shaped craft.

And this is the fundamental problem with the field of "ufology" in general. "It could be an alien spacecraft—or one of Bob Lazar's reverse-engineered sports models!" Sure, it could. In the same way, a wave on Loch Ness could be the monster lurking beneath the surface. Or it could just be a wave.