Calvine: Disclosure Team Q&A

[Rory]

On August 22nd at 1pm (I presume that's my time, so 1900 UTC) David Clarke and his 'team' will be hosting a YouTube Q&A with regard to the Calvine photo. Questions are to be submitted by email and I was thinking maybe we could compile a list of metabunk qs and one of us could send that in.

Perhaps through discussion we can not only come up with the questions we feel would be good to have answered but whittle it down to the best ones (as well as provide answers for those that already have them).

Questions that occur to me:

• Why did Clarke call the photographers "chefs" in the Daily Mail article after Lindsay had told him they were "mainly washing dishes"?
• Is the name of the photographer on the back of the photo Clarke received from Lindsay?
• Does Clarke know the name?
• What does the name "Russell" refer to (from the original photo analysis url)?
• On a scale of 1-10 how much does Clarke trust his DI source?
• Has the photographer (or his friend) been in touch?
• What do you think of the reflection hypothesis?
• How confident are you that the photo location identified is the right one?
• If confident, what is this based on?
• In the Daily Mail article you wrote that they left work at 9pm, whereas all other places say the photo was taken at 9pm. Why the discrepancy?
• Clarke is quoted (in Newsweek) as saying The Daily Record said they never received the negatives back from the MoD? Who at The Daily Record said this? How would they know?

Now I'm not suggesting all those questions are good, or relevant, or necessary, they're just the ones that occur to me regarding missing information or holes in the story. I wouldn't even expect them to be answered. But they get the ball rolling.

 

[deirdre]

why does the photograph say:

why do we need their permission when they dont own the copyright? did the Daily Record recently sell them the rights to the photo?
and if so, what proof did you have that the Daily Record owned the copyright to sell or give away?

 

[Ann K]

On August 22nd at 1pm (I presume that's my time, so 1900 UTC) David Clarke and his 'team' will be hosting a YouTube Q&A with regard to the Calvine photo. Questions are to be submitted by email and I was thinking maybe we could compile a list of metabunk qs and one of us could send that in.

Perhaps through discussion we can not only come up with the questions we feel would be good to have answered but whittle it down to the best ones (as well as provide answers for those that already have them).

Questions that occur to me:

• Why did Clarke call the photographers "chefs" in the Daily Mail article after Lindsay had told him they were "mainly washing dishes"?
• Is the name of the photographer on the back of the photo Clarke received from Lindsay?
• Does Clarke know the name?
• What does the name "Russell" refer to (from the original photo analysis url)?
• On a scale of 1-10 how much does Clarke trust his DI source?
• Has the photographer (or his friend) been in touch?
• What do you think of the reflection hypothesis?
• How confident are you that the photo location identified is the right one?
• If confident, what is this based on?
• In the Daily Mail article you wrote that they left work at 9pm, whereas all other places say the photo was taken at 9pm. Why the discrepancy?
• Clarke is quoted (in Newsweek) as saying The Daily Record said they never received the negatives back from the MoD? Who at The Daily Record said this? How would they know?

Now I'm not suggesting all those questions are good, or relevant, or necessary, they're just the ones that occur to me regarding missing information or holes in the story. I wouldn't even expect them to be answered. But they get the ball rolling.

Leave out the questions pertaining to the identity of the photographer, please. The name is redacted for a reason. If he chooses to come forward himself, that's fine, but if he chooses to remain anonymous, even if it is just from embarrassment at a youthful prank getting all this hype, it would be intrusive and "Tabloid-like" to intrude, and would belie the serious nature that Metabunk tries to portray.

 

[deirdre]

Leave out the questions pertaining to the identity of the photographer, please. The name is redacted for a reason. If he chooses to come forward himself, that's fine, but if he chooses to remain anonymous, even if it is just from embarrassment at a youthful prank getting all this hype, it would be intrusive and "Tabloid-like" to intrude, and would belie the serious nature that Metabunk tries to portray.

i think the second question is ok. just because if i was "the kid" i would want to know if Lindsay released my name to a university and an ufologist.

 

[NorCal Dave]

• Why did Clarke call the photographers "chefs" in the Daily Mail article after Lindsay had told him they were "mainly washing dishes"?
• In the Daily Mail article you wrote that they left work at 9pm, whereas all other places say the photo was taken at 9pm. Why the discrepancy?
• Clarke is quoted (in Newsweek) as saying The Daily Record said they never received the negatives back from the MoD? Who at The Daily Record said this? How would they know?

Excellent idea Rory.

Maybe we can group some related ones into overall questions to reduce the number we (probably you) ask. The above could be worded onto a single question something like:

"There are a number of discrepancies between your blog, the actual interviews with people involved and what has appeared in the press, such as the timing, the actual jobs of the witness and so on. Can you clarify please?"

What do you think of the reflection hypothesis?

Same here, we should try to expand to all the other theories and ask why he has eliminated them:

There are a number of theories including a hoax, a mountain top in the clouds, a reflection of some kind, why have you eliminated these and settled on the "Secret US aircraft" explanation?

Is the name of the photographer on the back of the photo Clarke received from Lindsay?

This one is interesting, Linsday's story is that the Daily Record printed this picture for him from the negatives, so why would the name be on there? I guess Linsday could have written it to remember who it was.

Leave out the questions pertaining to the identity of the photographer, please. The name is redacted for a reason. If he chooses to come forward himself, that's fine, but if he chooses to remain anonymous, even if it is just from embarrassment at a youthful prank getting all this hype, it would be intrusive and "Tabloid-like" to intrude, and would belie the serious nature that Metabunk tries to portray.

I'm a little mixed on this one. IF the story is remotely accurate, he sent the pictures into the paper and said "this is me" with the intent of getting them published. The MoD may have redacted his name as a matter of policy, but had the photos been published, his name would have been out there. Likewise, if the backstory had gotten out earlier, people at the Daily Record may have remembered the name. It wasn't secret, just forgotten. The MoD paper describing how the negative were sent to the Daily Record, then to the RAF with the name of the person, wasn't released until 2009, almost 20 years.

I went public, but the photos weren't published, so now I want to remain anonymous.

 

[DavidB66]

If Clarke's team includes Robinson (the photo expert), I'd ask him why his report says the 'object' appears to be closer to the military jet than to the fence. Indeed, why does he even think it is beyond the fence rather than closer to the camera?

 

[JMartJr]

If he'd be an appropriate person to ask, I'm curious as to how they decided it was a Harrier jet, and how confident that identification is.

 

[Rory]

This one is interesting, Lindsay's story is that the Daily Record printed this picture for him from the negatives, so why would the name be on there?

Clarke speaking in the Disclosure video (40:52) -

[Lindsay] was also concerned about data protection because on the back of the print was written in bright red letters the name of the copyright holder - we presume the name of the photographer - but he wouldn't let us see the name and he wouldn't let us get too close to the photograph

This is a little time before he decided it was okay to hand the photo over (at the end of June this year; I think I read somewhere that they first met in May).

Leave out the questions pertaining to the identity of the photographer, please. The name is redacted for a reason. If he chooses to come forward himself, that's fine, but if he chooses to remain anonymous, even if it is just from embarrassment at a youthful prank getting all this hype, it would be intrusive and "Tabloid-like" to intrude, and would belie the serious nature that Metabunk tries to portray.

Right, I wouldn't suggest asking for the name, merely asking if they have the name.

 

[Ann K]

I'm a little mixed on this one. IF the story is remotely accurate, he sent the pictures into the paper and said "this is me" with the intent of getting them published. The MoD may have redacted his name as a matter of policy, but had the photos been published, his name would have been out there. Likewise, if the backstory had gotten out earlier, people at the Daily Record may have remembered the name. It wasn't secret, just forgotten. The MoD paper describing how the negative were sent to the Daily Record, then to the RAF with the name of the person, wasn't released until 2009, almost 20 years.

I went public, but the photos weren't published, so now I want to remain anonymous.

Thought experiment: were there any things that happened in your teen years that you'd like to forget? If not, I question whether you were ever a teen.

 

[NorCal Dave]

Thought experiment: were there any things that happened in your teen years that you'd like to forget? If not, I question whether you were ever a teen.

Not to get off topic, but of course. We all make screw up, well beyond our teen years, at least for me.

BUT, in this case, according to Clark, we're talking about, an as yet undisclosed, secret US aircraft flying over Scotland. The person that recorded this event went public 30 years ago, and his name has since been forgotten. It's a bit of "I'll go public when it suits me, but not when it doesn't".

Now if this a hoax, then there is a chance the backstory is as well. This may not be protecting a poor teenage dishwasher, but a 40 year old (now 70) hoaxer that didn't expect a call from the RAF.

 

[Mendel]

why does the photograph say:
View attachment 53799

from Mick's starting post on the "original photo" thread:

Article:

The image now resides in its new home at the Sheffield Hallam University folklore archives.

Source: https://www.uapmedia.uk/articles/calvinerevealed

 

[Mendel]

Question: How certain are we that both witnesses were male? is that a confirmed fact, or a polite assumption on someone's part that made its way into the lore?

 

[DavidB66]

Another point for the photo expert: how confident is he that the original film was taken in B&W, then printed on colour photo paper? All the early MoD reports seem to refer to colour photos. But the negatives, which supposedly the MoD also received after requesting them, would presumably be B&W. I don't think I've seen any reference in the MoD documents or other accounts to having B&W originals, or commenting on the fact (if it is one) that the originals are B&W but the prints in colour. This may not be surprising to a photo expert, but most of those involved were not photo experts, and I would have expected them to make some remark on the oddity. Apologies if I've again overlooked something in the docs.

 

[deirdre]

from Mick's starting post on the "original photo" thread:

Article:

The image now resides in its new home at the Sheffield Hallam University folklore archives.

Source: https://www.uapmedia.uk/articles/calvinerevealed

yea it says that right on the photo. that doesnt answer the question.

 

[deirdre]

@Duke instead of disagreeing with me. how about you explain to me how that answers my copyright question. I already knew it was given to the University before i asked the question.

 

[Duke]

A little over a year ago, Dr Clarke ("The UFO That Never Was") seemed to indicate he believed the Calvine photos were hoaxed. In doing so, he all but eliminated the possibility of the object shown being a classified US air vehicle. He did this despite being told exactly that by his unnamed Defense Intelligence Staff PoC.

Now as I understand it, he apparently believes the photos are genuine and depict a classified US air vehicle based on the same information from the unnamed Defense Intelligence staff PoC he discounted previously. What changed?

It's unclear if, other than Lindsey finding and releasing his squirreled away copy of one of the Calvine photos, Dr Clarke came across any other information (documents, personal interviews, anonymous tips etc.) that led him to change his mind on the validity of the photos. So my question to Dr Clarke is:

What changed your mind relative to the validity of the Calvine photos/incident from your release of 'The UFO That Never Was' in late July 2021 to Aug 22? Was it simply seeing Lindsey's copy of the photo, or did you receive/review additional information during that one year period?

 

[Duke]

@Duke instead of disagreeing with me. how about you explain to me how that answers my copyright question. I already knew it was given to the University before i asked the question.

I didn't disagree with you, I was looking at the various response emojis to the understand the difference between the red thumb down emoji and the red x you'd received. In the process I registered the "disagree" response apparently. I also now understand how to remove it, which I have just done.

Not to answer for the OP, but I have had personal experiences along these lines. When my Dad died a few years ago, as his executor of his estate, I donated an autographed item of sports memorabilia to a local university, as well as local radio memorabilia to the local history museum. In each case I had to sign an agreement that gave both institutions total control of and rights to the donated items.

Neither would accept the items as being on loan, it was explained, due to liability issues. So it was either give the items to them with full ownership and rights, or they wouldn't take them. Maybe that's how the university library in the UK works as well.

 

[deirdre]

When my Dad died a few years ago, as his executor of his estate, I donated an autographed item of sports memorabilia to a local university, as well as local radio memorabilia to the local history museum. In each case I had to sign an agreement that gave both institutions total control of and rights to the donated items.

Neither would accept the items as being on loan, it was explained, due to liability issues. So it was either give the items to them with full ownership and rights, or they wouldn't take them. Maybe that's how the university library in the UK works as well.

yes. you owned "the copyright", you inherited it from your dad.
so that is my question, "does/did Lindsay own the copyright (as the photo tag implies) and if so who did he receive the ownership rights from."

 

[Max Phalange]

I'd like to know whether Lindsay claims to have seen the other 5 photos, and if so how they differ from the one he kept the print from. I'm not sure if that has been addressed anywhere.

 

[Hougenai]

I'd like to know whether Lindsay claims to have seen the other 5 photos, and if so how they differ from the one he kept the print from. I'm not sure if that has been addressed anywhere.

You beat me to it, my sugestion is also 'to enquire into the whereabouts and nature of the other photo's'.

(Where does this one fall in the sequence? How long from first to last? What is static in the images? do they all have the same field of /depth of view? etc etc

 

[Duke]

yes. you owned the copyright, you inherited it from your dad.
so that is my question, "does/did Lindsay own the copyright (as the photo tag implies) and if so who did he receive the ownership rights from."

You might be right, I'm not an attorney. I do know the radio memorabilia (60s/70s radio station "newsletters" for lack of a better term) donated items had the radio station's copyright symbol on them. So while my Dad legally owned the publicly distributed newsletters, I would assume the radio station that issued them still retains the copyrights.

In the case of the Lindsey photo, while he may have possessed (vice legally owned?) the photo, you're saying the ownership of the photo rights were not his to give. That sounds reasonable, but then who do you think might own the rights? The photographer? The MoD?

 

[NorCal Dave]

I'd like to know whether Lindsay claims to have seen the other 5 photos, and if so how they differ from the one he kept the print from. I'm not sure if that has been addressed anywhere.

Yes, it's in the interview on the video. I don't have time right now to go listen again. IIRC, he says he saw them in London when he saw the big blow-up version of his print. He says the UFO mostly stays in place and the plane moves.

Another point for the photo expert: how confident is he that the original film was taken in B&W, then printed on colour photo paper?

Good point. Again, maybe a question that combines issues with the photo analysis and descriptions of the negatives.

The original MoD write up says "color photos" were received by the Daily Record and RAF, then followed by negatives to the Daily Record.

I'll note one problem is that these reports seem to use "photograph" and "negative" somewhat interchangeably. I think for us, we should stick to negative and print for clarity

Something else, that I think supports the idea that the MoD took a look at the photos/negatives and dismissed them as nothing important is the dates. The siting is said to have occurred on 8/9/1990:

There is nearly a month in between, before the MoD gets the photos/negatives and analyzes them. They say the photographs (negatives?), were received on 9/10/1990. I'm assuming this is when they were sent from the Daily Record to London as Linsday claims.

If, as Linsday claims, he sent the faxed copy to London the day he received the picture from the paper, was instructed to get the negatives within minutes of sending the fax and he told the paper to send them directly, that would have been 8/8 or 8/7? I don't know UK mail times.

Assuming the photographer had first sent a print to the Daily Record and then the negatives a few days before, he still sat on the photos for nearly 3 weeks.

Once the MoD in London got the negatives on 9/10, they only spent a few days looking at them before returning them to the Daily Record. The report is dated 9/14/1990 and says the negatives had already been returned.

There are some questions here, sorry to just muse, but I got stuff that needs doing this morning.

 

[Mendel]

Assuming the photographer had first sent a print to the Daily Record and then the negatives a few days before, he still sat on the photos for nearly 3 weeks.

he'd also have had the negatives developed commercially, which might've taken a week or more, since it was holiday season?

 

[Ann K]

Once the MoD in London got the negatives on 9/10, they only spent a few days looking at them before returning them to the Daily Record. The report is dated 9/14/1990 and says the negatives had already been returned

If a date is, say, the fifth of July, Americans abbreviate it as 7/5, month first and then day. But the British write it as 5/7, day first and then month.

Be careful not to get tripped up by this different convention. I once had to rewrite a scheduling program to print out the name of the month with the day, when we had a group of Brits arrive in our American company.

 

[Rory]

Clarke's associate Illsley wrote that:

"We have a senior former defence intelligence source who interviewed the witnesses at the time."

https://www.pprune.org/military-avi...o-uap-1990-calvine-scotland.html#post11180649

From everything I've read of Clarke's I've never read anything that hints his DI source had firsthand knowledge of the witnesses.

So probably there's a question that could be asked there.

 

[Rory]

Here's me having a look at the questions so far and writing up my opinions on them in italics:

1. David has written that the witnesses were chefs who left work at 9pm, whereas Lindsay says the two witnesses were "mainly washing dishes" and it seems generally accepted that the photos were taken close to 9pm. What explains the discrenpancies there?

I think those are okay questions. But probably the answers will be, yeah, they were dishwashers and, sorry, that thing about leaving work at 9pm was just to make the newspaper story flow better (notice that he did write the photos were taken around 9pm everywhere else). Unless he has some hitherto unpublished information that supersedes what Lindsay told him - in which case it may lead to something interesting.

Probably not, though, so I would put some ways down the list.

2. David wrote that the name of the photographer was on the back of Lindsay's picture? Does that mean David (and presumbably others) now know the name? If not why not?

Definitely a good one. Top priority.

3. Has the photographer or their fellow witness been in touch with you?

Could be interesting, just to see the looks on their faces when they answer it. But probably just a "yes" or "no" answer.

4. What does the name "Russell" refer to (from the original photo analysis url)?

That's a leftfield one that I might not expect from elsewhere. I'm tempted to put it in the top third.

5. On a scale of 1-10 how much does Clarke trust his DI source?

A little confrontational, and I'm not sure how much useful information could be gathered from the answer: we already know that they trust him (if not 100%). What y'all think?

6. How confident are you that the photo location you identified is the right one? If confident, what is this based on?

Seems a pretty solid question.

7. What do you think of the explanations that suggest it could be hoax using a reflection, model, double exposure, or that it shows a distant hill or mountaintop?

I can't say I'm massively interested in the potential answers to this one - what could they give us except opinions much the same as ones we can give ourselves? Unless they have secret information we don't (and they've been pretty open thus far).

One for the end of the session if there's a minute left and the room is silent I think.

8. Clarke is quoted in Newsweek as saying The Daily Record said they never received the negatives back from the MoD? Did someone at The Daily Record tell him this? How would they know?

I think that would be good to know. My suspicion is it's speculative hyperbole - and the danger here is that Clarke's obvious option is to double down and dig in, which may not do anyone any good. Not sure.

9. Who now owns the copyright of Lindsay's photo? If Sheffield Hallam University how was this obtained from either Lindsay, The Daily Record, or the photographer?

I think it's an interesting question, but if we consider the range of potential answers I'm not sure how useful the information would be. Maybe one for about halfway down the list.

10. How confident are you that the aircraft is a Harrier?

It was the MoD that decided that the aircraft was a Harrier - and the witnesses seem to have said so too. Not sure these guys will have anything to add to that (Illsley's gone deep into it on various air force forums and doesn't seem to have any info we don't). Could rephrase it though into asking if they've discovered anything new about the aircraft's identity and what they think about the possibility that it's a harrier.

11. Is it a confirmed fact that both witnesses were male or that a assumption?

That's a good question. Top third for me.

12. All the early MoD reports and accounts of people who saw the original photos and poster seem to refer to colour images. How confident are you that the original film was taken in B&W then printed on colour photo paper? How do you account for this discrepancy?

I think this is a good question, since the early reports seem pretty clear about that. I have read one person that said "my recollection is that the copy I saw was black and white. It was sharp, on glossy photo paper (not a photocopy) and looked authentic" but that could easily have been him seeing Lindsay's photo, since Lindsay apparently showed it to quite a lot of people.

13. A year ago David wrote that he felt mostly sure the image was a hoax, with a little opening to the possibility of it being a US stealth craft. What changed his mind? Was it simply seeing Lindsey's copy of the photo or has he received/reviewed additional information?

Feels like a good question. Top third I think.

14. Did Lindsay claim to have seen the other five photos, and if so how did they differ from the one he kept the print from?

From everything I've read the consensus seems to be that this was the best one and that the other five didn't show anything significantly different - though that does beg the question of the second aeroplane.

As for Lindsay, on the Disclosure video (50:28) Clarke asks Lindsay this question and he's not 100% sure but he thinks he did see the other five - most likely in the London office - and describes the plane being in different spots, and then says "this particular one is the one that I think any picture editor would have chosen."

So this one's answered.

15. Do you have any idea where the other five photos might be?

I doubt whether they do. I think those pictures are long gone.

16. Matthew wrote that "we have a senior former defence intelligence source who interviewed the witnesses at the time." From what David writes he doesn't seem to indicate that his source interviewed the witnesses. Did he?

My feeling is that Matthew is just a little confused here and I've asked him this question on Twitter. I guess any questions about the source, intriguing though they are, probably won't lead anywhere. What can they say? They have to place trust, even if it may be a little unfounded, and they have to maintain confidentiality.

I would like an answer to this one but I don't think it needs to go on the list.

In summary, I'm going to rate them "top drawer", "middle drawer" and "bottom drawer (inc. recycle bin) and I invite others to do the same so as to finalise the list, add any questions outstanding, or point me to ones I've missed.

1 - middle drawer
2 - top
3 - top
4 - top (if there's room)
5 - middle
6 - top
7 - middle
8 - middle
9 - bottom
10 - bottom
11 - top
12 - top
13 - top
14 - answered
15 - bottom
16 - bottom

So that's 6/7 I would put in the top drawer. Is that still too greedy? Any disagreements? I suppose we could always submit more and say something like "only answer these if you've run out of questions" (ie, "don't skip over the ones we'd really like answers to just to get to the easier ones").

Oh, and probably I should send them within the next day or so.

 

[Duke]

Here's me having a look at the questions so far and writing up my opinions on them in italics:

1. David has written that the witnesses were chefs who left work at 9pm, whereas Lindsay says the two witnesses were "mainly washing dishes" and it seems generally accepted that the photos were taken close to 9pm. What explains the discrenpancies there?

I think those are okay questions. But probably the answers will be, yeah, they were dishwashers and, sorry, that thing about leaving work at 9pm was just to make the newspaper story flow better (notice that he did write the photos were taken around 9pm everywhere else). Unless he has some hitherto unpublished information that supersedes what Lindsay told him - in which case it may lead to something interesting.

Probably not, though, so I would put some ways down the list.

2. David wrote that the name of the photographer was on the back of Lindsay's picture? Does that mean David (and presumbably others) now know the name? If not why not?

Definitely a good one. Top priority.

3. Has the photographer or their fellow witness been in touch with you?

Could be interesting, just to see the looks on their faces when they answer it. But probably just a "yes" or "no" answer.

4. What does the name "Russell" refer to (from the original photo analysis url)?

That's a leftfield one that I might not expect from elsewhere. I'm tempted to put it in the top third.

5. On a scale of 1-10 how much does Clarke trust his DI source?

A little confrontational, and I'm not sure how much useful information could be gathered from the answer: we already know that they trust him (if not 100%). What y'all think?

6. How confident are you that the photo location you identified is the right one? If confident, what is this based on?

Seems a pretty solid question.

7. What do you think of the explanations that suggest it could be hoax using a reflection, model, double exposure, or that it shows a distant hill or mountaintop?

I can't say I'm massively interested in the potential answers to this one - what could they give us except opinions much the same as ones we can give ourselves? Unless they have secret information we don't (and they've been pretty open thus far).

One for the end of the session if there's a minute left and the room is silent I think.

8. Clarke is quoted in Newsweek as saying The Daily Record said they never received the negatives back from the MoD? Did someone at The Daily Record tell him this? How would they know?

I think that would be good to know. My suspicion is it's speculative hyperbole - and the danger here is that Clarke's obvious option is to double down and dig in, which may not do anyone any good. Not sure.

9. Who now owns the copyright of Lindsay's photo? If Sheffield Hallam University how was this obtained from either Lindsay, The Daily Record, or the photographer?

I think it's an interesting question, but if we consider the range of potential answers I'm not sure how useful the information would be. Maybe one for about halfway down the list.

10. How confident are you that the aircraft is a Harrier?

It was the MoD that decided that the aircraft was a Harrier - and the witnesses seem to have said so too. Not sure these guys will have anything to add to that (Illsley's gone deep into it on various air force forums and doesn't seem to have any info we don't). Could rephrase it though into asking if they've discovered anything new about the aircraft's identity and what they think about the possibility that it's a harrier.

11. Is it a confirmed fact that both witnesses were male or that a assumption?

That's a good question. Top third for me.

12. All the early MoD reports and accounts of people who saw the original photos and poster seem to refer to colour images. How confident are you that the original film was taken in B&W then printed on colour photo paper? How do you account for this discrepancy?

I think this is a good question, since the early reports seem pretty clear about that. I have read one person that said "my recollection is that the copy I saw was black and white. It was sharp, on glossy photo paper (not a photocopy) and looked authentic" but that could easily have been him seeing Lindsay's photo, since Lindsay apparently showed it to quite a lot of people.

13. A year ago David wrote that he felt mostly sure the image was a hoax, with a little opening to the possibility of it being a US stealth craft. What changed his mind? Was it simply seeing Lindsey's copy of the photo or has he received/reviewed additional information?

Feels like a good question. Top third I think.

14. Did Lindsay claim to have seen the other five photos, and if so how did they differ from the one he kept the print from?

From everything I've read the consensus seems to be that this was the best one and that the other five didn't show anything significantly different - though that does beg the question of the second aeroplane.

As for Lindsay, on the Disclosure video (50:28) Clarke asks Lindsay this question and he's not 100% sure but he thinks he did see the other five - most likely in the London office - and describes the plane being in different spots, and then says "this particular one is the one that I think any picture editor would have chosen."

So this one's answered.

15. Do you have any idea where the other five photos might be?

I doubt whether they do. I think those pictures are long gone.

16. Matthew wrote that "we have a senior former defence intelligence source who interviewed the witnesses at the time." From what David writes he doesn't seem to indicate that his source interviewed the witnesses. Did he?

My feeling is that Matthew is just a little confused here and I've asked him this question on Twitter. I guess any questions about the source, intriguing though they are, probably won't lead anywhere. What can they say? They have to place trust, even if it may be a little unfounded, and they have to maintain confidentiality.

I would like an answer to this one but I don't think it needs to go on the list.

In summary, I'm going to rate them "top drawer", "middle drawer" and "bottom drawer (inc. recycle bin" and I invite others to do the same so as to finalise the list, add any questions outstanding, or point me to ones I've missed.

1 - middle drawer
2 - top
3 - top
4 - top (if there's room)
5 - middle
6 - top
7 - middle
8 - middle
9 - bottom
10 - bottom
11 - top
12 - top
13 - top
14 - answered
15 - bottom
16 - bottom

So that's 6/7 I would put in the top drawer. Is that still too greedy? Any disagreements? I suppose we could always submit more and say something like "only answer these if you've run out of questions" (ie, "don't skip over the ones we'd really like answers to just to get to the easier ones").

Oh, and probably I should send them within the next day or so.

Or we can submit our own questions. I'll probably do that if, as the program progresses and if they are taking questions real time, I hear something that needs clarification or is contradictory to something previously stated.

 

[NorCal Dave]

From everything I've read of Clarke's I've never read anything that hints his DI source had firsthand knowledge of the witnesses.

Yes, and when did it happen. IF Linsday interviewed the witness first and arranged for the negatives to be sent to MoD in London, he would have been talking to him around September 7-9 if the negatives arrived at MoD on Sept 10. By Sept 14, the negatives had already been sent back, so when did this DI source conduct an interview of both witnesses? Mybe during the re-look in '91? Linsday makes no mention of poaching, so is this later second interview where that comes from? But if that's the case, and Clark et al. has found the site 1/2 mile from town, who poaches that close to town?

Be careful not to get tripped up by this different convention.

Good point, I did use American dating, but the reports I was referring to all spell out the actual months. Sighting on August 9, negatives received September 10, report dated September 14.

he'd also have had the negatives developed commercially, which might've taken a week or more, since it was holiday season?

Maybe. Here in the states as we rolled into the '90s, 1-3 day developing was common, and 1 hour developing was becoming common. From the NY Times 1988:

Because of people like her, lacking time but needing pictures, the number of so-called one-hour photo processing shops is growing rapidly nationwide, spawning a fundamental change in the $4.5 billion retail photofinishing industry. And the increasing availability of smaller and cheaper automated film-processing machines is likely to continue the trend, according to people in the industry.

Mini-labs now account for a third of the photofinishing industry, and some experts think they will continue to proliferate, capturing about two-thirds of the market. Others think their spread will slow but that more large retailers will add them.

https://www.nytimes.com/1988/02/06/business/rapid-rise-of-fast-photo-processing.

I don't know in the UK, but weeks seems a little long. And as noted in other threads, Illford marketed an XP1 home developing kit, assuming that is the film used, it's something a photo enthusiast might have been interested in.

 

[Ann K]

Sighting on August 9,

Small correction, it's August 4th.

 

[Rory]

so when did this DI source conduct an interview of both witnesses? Mybe during the re-look in '91? Linsday makes no mention of poaching, so is this later second interview where that comes from?

It really would be one hell of a coincidence: Clarke finds a DI source willing to talk to him; the DI source starts talking about cases, including this one in Scotland; Clarke realises that he's talking about Calvine; and the DI source turns out to be the guy who did an unrecorded second interview with the witness(es).

I think probably Illsley just misunderstood something he read of Clarke's (or that Clarke had told him) and the DI source - assuming they're real - was talking about cases he had secondhand rather than firsthand knowledge of.

Though, again, it's worth noting that Nick Pope says he looked in the file soon after he got in the job in '91 and doesn't relate anything we don't know from surviving records (including not seeing pictures). Also another Pitreavie intelligence officer said "We did have a dark red file on this general topic but it contained nothing that persuaded me we were having ET visitors. Also later worked in the next office to Nick Pope and same applies." So I have serious doubts about these "extra details" (the poaching, etc).

 

[Rory]

One more question: Spiers and Baldwin both said they thought it was a "spoof". Did either of them say how they thought it was done? If not, is it possible to ask them?

I'll send these in later today.

 

[NorCal Dave]

I'll send these in later today.

You the man Rory. Thanks for spearheading and trying to get something organized.

 

[Rory]

The questions I sent in:

Tier 1

1. David wrote that the name of the photographer was on the back of Lindsay's picture? Does that mean David (and presumably others) now know the name? If not, why not?

2. Has the photographer or their fellow witness been in touch with you?

3. What does the name "Russell" refer to (from the original photo analysis url)?

4. How confident are you that the photo location you identified is the right one? If confident, what is this based on?

5. Is it a confirmed fact that both witnesses were male or is that an assumption?

6. All the early MoD reports and accounts of people who saw the original photos and poster seem to refer to colour images. How confident are you that the original film was taken in B&W then printed on colour photo paper? How do you account for this discrepancy?

7. Spiers and Baldwin both said they thought it was a "spoof". Did either of them say how they thought it was done? If not, is it possible to ask them?

8. A year ago David wrote that he felt mostly sure the image was a hoax, with a little opening to the possibility of it being a US stealth craft. Now he seems firmly in the stealth craft camp with a little opening to hoax. What changed his mind? Was it simply seeing Lindsay's copy of the photo or has he received/reviewed additional information that we haven't been made privy to?

9. What do you guys think of the various explanation theories, such as reflection, rock/island, man in a boat, mountaintop in fog, double exposure, model hanging from a tree, etc?

Tier 2 (reserve)

1. David has written that the witnesses were chefs who left work at 9pm, whereas Lindsay says the two witnesses were "mainly washing dishes" and it seems generally accepted that the photos were taken close to 9pm, which would be at least forty minutes after they left work. What explains the discrepancies there?

2. David is quoted in Newsweek as saying The Daily Record said they never received the negatives back from the MoD and seemed doubtful when Lindsay also said they had been returned. Did someone at The Daily Record tell him they hadn't been? And how would they know?

3. Matthew wrote that "we have a senior former defence intelligence source who interviewed the witnesses at the time." From what David writes he doesn't seem to indicate that his source interviewed the witnesses. Did he?

4. Matthew also wrote that the two witnesses "were out in the middle of nowhere on a remote, private, 90,000-acre deer reserve". What is the name of this "remote, private reserve"? Why isn't this mentioned elsewhere?

 

[Rory]

So I received an email from David yesterday morning with nicely detailed answers to most of the above questions as he says he feels most of the discussion will be taken up by questions similar to our Question 9 and answered by Andrew.

Definitely some interesting new pieces of information which change a few things. I'll post his answers here after the Q&A (as per his request).


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQqt0d34nbI&ab_channel=DisclosureTeam

Starts at 1900 UTC, with Vinnie Adams in another live panel discussion after that one:


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RJkpizVCFM&ab_channel=UAPSociety

 

[Rory]

Also happening at 1900 UTC today - an interview with a freelance photographer who apparently says they saw all six of the original photos:


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFc9pe2-RdE&ab_channel=ALIENADDICT

 

[Rory]

Live Q&A report (seeing as I'm watching it)...

• Intros
• Andrew Robinson says what he already said in his analysis (though confirms he made a copy of the Lindsay photo)
• Still thinks there's landscape along the bottom ("a ridge with trees on it - details around 19-21m)

22:00

• Rules out cutout close to the camera or dangling from the tree because of focus
• Explains estimation of object size

27:00

• Doesn't rule out reflection but says highly unlikely (mentions rock, island, boat, etc)

32:00

• Giles Stevens highlights where the countryside in the Nick Pope reconstruction was taken from
• Shows photos from around the area

39:00

• Discussing mountaintop theory, pretty much dismissed
• Says "hardly any lochs have barbed wire fencing near the water" - which is very satisfying to the panel (even though it implies some do)
• Confirms 90,000 acre deer reserve is Atholl Estate, encompassing Struan Point
• Looking at Straiph Wilson's video of the viewpoint (no exact recreation shots)

57:00

• Clarke talks about talking to people in the area
• Stevens talking about holiday workers ("population of Pitlochry swells from 2,500 to 8,000 in the summer")

1:01

• Clarke says he talked to a guy who knew the witnesses, says they didn't hoax it, and has revealed details he wouldn't know if he was making it up
• Clarke talking about where the "poaching" idea come from - his DI source - and reveals the others in the panel have heard a recording of their conversation and feel he's legit
• Stevens talking about how it's normal to go walking around there at 9pm
• Clarke says one of the photographers was a keen birdwatcher (hence camera)
• Stevens says the recording of the conversation was very matter of fact and casual

1:07

• Clarke says someone told him it was a US stealth craft on a test to see if it was "invisible" (to radar)
• Graeme Rendall talking about where all the Harriers were and whether it might be a Hunter
• Says he thinks it looks like a Harrier GR-3
• Says he thinks the MoD experts would have been "very very skilled" at identifying the aircraft

1:19

• Clarke talking about how the photos made their way to Pitreavie Castle (and why things took time)
• Says DI55 did interview the witnesses at the time in 1990
• Some talk about stealth crafts, Machrihanish, the early 90s kerfuffle over Aurora
• Everyone seems very confident that the idea of a US stealth craft is highly plausible (including the ability to hover for 10 minutes)

1:29

• Talk about the discussions between US and UK top brass
• Clarke reads out a memo he obtained through the FOIA written by Baldwin talking about taking the photo to the US
• The story about the US thinking the UK had made their own stealth craft based on their technology

1:32

• Petering out, going over things already discussed

1:48

• Clarke answers the question "why didn't Lindsay come out with it earlier?" by saying a big part of it was probably to do with the OTT response from others
• Also a bit annoyed by the tabloid stories about Calvine and what Pope wrote in his book (ie, the discrepancies)

1:54

• The photographer's name is on the back of the photograph in red ink - so, yes, they do know their name
• Won't be revealing it though (not just for privacy, but also for verification purposes)

 

[deirdre]

5. Is it a confirmed fact that both witnesses were male or is that an assumption?

yea like that question is more important than the chain of custody ownership of the photo. lol.

 

[FatPhil]

27:00 Doesn't rule out reflection but says highly unlikely (mentions rock, island, boat, etc)

It's late, I'm tired, this point will not be well made, hopefully someone can fill in the gaps, or correct me.

I'd say that if you've seen 6 photos, taken at different times, of something that is claimed to be in motion (and anything else would violate the API of Air 1.0) then a reflection off water would either become extremely likely or completely and utterly impossible - there's no middle ground for something as wishy-washy as "highly unlikely". Water has to obey Gravity 1.0 - its surface will be normal to the vertical in every photo. Either the hypothetical mirror plane is identical in all six photos, in which case you've got an extremely strong case for reflection off water, or it isn't, in which case you've completely destroyed the argument.

Hilltop peak over cloud likelwise would either be massively supported, or destroyed.

 

[Rory]

Now Alien Addict:

• Photographer Stu Little (I remember that name from some YouTube comments on various Calvine videos) says he saw the negatives in (perhaps) autumn 1993 at the Daily Record building in Glasgow
• Says he saw them when he was 18/19 and is 48 now
• Says there was one of the photos on the wall (frame 4; not the Lindsay one)
• He asked what it was and the guy showed him a strip of 6 negatives (and that they were duplicates of the originals)
• Says he was told the camera was a Canon AE 1 Program
• Says the Lindsay image is a crop, that there was more fence line, more tree, more bush
• Says he remembers the camera model well because he had a Canon F1
• Seems like he knows his camera stuff

0:18

• Says he used XP1 around the time "because he was lazy" and used Boots to have it developed
• Talks about the photo printing machine the Record had at the time
• Says the "colour tinge" comes because of the colour printing
• Says the craft on the Lindsay print is more out of focus than it was on the negatives because the person who was working the enlarger didn't focus on print he was copying properly

0:26

• Talks about how the negatives might have been duplicated
• Says they most likely printed the original negatives on 10x8 and then re-photographed them on colour film

0:32

• Shows re-creations of the six images based on memory
• Frame 1 with no aircraft
• More talk about how the originals were much more detailed but (again) how the print was made out of focus

0:38

• Says he could see panels on the craft
• Says he thinks it was a stealth craft
• Talks about Chris Gibson (Disclosure Team did too)
• Says "I never thought for one minute it was ETs"

0:42

• Frame 2 (the Lindsay photo)
• Says he doesn't think it was a Harrier
• Frame 3 is craft a little to the right and the plane is over to the left, banking clockwise, and looking to circle back around
• Frame 4 is the shot with two jets in it
• Talks about the D-notice and that's why they didn't publish the pictures
• Says he think the aircraft were Tornados
• Says he was told that the D-notice may have been to do with the Tornados

0:53

• Says "it was definitely man-made"
• "Common knowledge that the Americans were testing stealth craft at Machrihanish"
• Agrees with estimates of 100 feet in size

1:09

• Frames 5 and 6 don't have the aircraft in them
• Discussion of clouds and mist
• Dismisses reflection theory: "100% not a rock"

1:16

• Says the original negatives were all sequential
• Guesses at 1/250 shutter speed
• Speculates that it might be an F-16 Falcon (but "probably not")

1:25

• Talks about an instance where a photographer friend had negatives of an air crash taken by the MoD, was promised them back, but never received them (therefore "standard practice" for a photographer/newspaper to makes copies, surreptitiously or otherwise)
• Says the bottom 15-20% of the original photos showed hills but that these were cropped out ("it was the craft they were interested in, not the hills")
• Shows a recreation of the craft based on memory:

1:37

• Says he looked at the negatives through a viewer that was "basically like looking through a magnifying glass" with 20x zoom and had about 15 minutes looking at them
• Says he thinks the Lindsay photograph is about 30% of the quality of what he saw
• Says he thinks the negatives were probably lost/trashed

1:43

• More talk about when he saw the original image on the wall (what he calls "the rag print" which didn't have the fence in it)

1:58

• Says he knows a couple of people who were at the Record at the time who he's going to contact to see if there's any possibility in finding the negatives

In summary

I dug his vibe. I'm always a bit wary about things recalled from memory but there was never any sense in him of stalling, making stuff up, reaching for information. Very straightforward and detailed. And a few interesting little tidbits there.

 

[Ann K]

27:00

• Doesn't rule out reflection but says highly unlikely (mentions rock, island, boat, etc)

Andrew (I think it was) laughably called this a "convincing image of a highland landscape", when there is no obvious landscape in the photo at all, and has completely mischaracterized the nature of reflections and the fact that a three-dimensional object wouldn't cast a mirror image. He has also repeated the canard that the reflection of the opposite bank would be visible, when that would only be true if it were a very small lake indeed. (Loch Tummel, for example, is about seventeen miles long.)

He also made completely unverifiable claims of the relative distances of the objects. I get a vibe of "spooky claims to gain attention", not a serious analysis at all. Is it worth wasting more of my time?