Calvine Photo Hoax Theories

[Andreas]

The original film was color. This original film was sent to the MoD. The newspaper had already made a B&W internegative. What's his name requested a copy from the paper. The paper no longer had the original film, so someone slammed out a print from the B&W internegative on Ektacolor because it was easy. It turned out relatively well because it was a contrasty negative. But there was an inevitable color cast.

That's my guess.

In other words, it's possible that Daily Record made a black-and-white internegative intended for an upcoming article. At least it would make sense for them to do so. It's also possible that this internegative was used to make Lindsay's copy, which would explain the black-and-white photograph we see today. If that's the case, then we frankly don't know whether the film used by the "witness" was color or black-and-white—which is frustrating, as it's yet another unknown in this case.

And frankly, I don't know what we can make of Craig Lindsay's testimonies. Many of the details we believe we know about this case rely solely on his three-decade-old recollections—but is it really reasonable to take them literally? Given what we understand about how human memory works, can we even take the main events of his story for granted?

Take, for example, his claim that he called the witness. There are no documents or notes supporting that this ever happened—only Lindsay's own recollection. What we do know is that someone (possibly Allan) at the Daily Record called Lindsay for a comment. That person must have relayed what the witness claimed about the incident. But can we be sure Lindsay hasn't reconstructed this memory into a phone call with the actual witness? The MoD documents never mention anyone interviewing the witness. Perhaps someone at the MoD did, perhaps Lindsay made the alleged phone call, or perhaps none of this happened, and the entire story is based solely on what the witness originally told the Daily Record.

Roediger and DeSoto explain memory as a reconstructive process:

http://psychnet.wustl.edu/memory/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/BC_Roediger-DeSoto-in-press-1.pdf

"...remembering the past should be viewed as reconstructing it. . . . we can think of the process of remembering the past as we conceive of paleontologists' reconstruction of a dinosaur from bone fragments and chips. The archaeologist recovers a partial skeleton, but the finished product in a museum is shown as complete, with new bones added, old ones refinished or enhanced, and the entire skeleton reconstructed based on knowledge of what the animal probably looked like. . . . However, the story about the event might involve considerable constructive activity on the part of the rememberer. A person's present knowledge and goals may shape and determine how he or she remembers the past."

We don't know if Lindsay had retold the Calvine story at gatherings and parties over the years, adding and removing details. We don't know what Clarke told him prior to the interview. We don't know if Lindsay had read the declassified documents, listened to Nick Pope's stories, or simply speculated on his own while looking at the old photo he had tucked away.

Personally, I'm starting to struggle to separate what we know about this case from what we think we know.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

At this point I think we've hit the end of the road. I've only been sticking with this because of the interesting photography issues.

I think it's just another hoax photo made by a middling amateur photographer. I could have done it at the age of 17. The witness story is entirely fictional.

Someone at the tabloid went through the motions of sending the photos to the MoD to punch up the story and a technician made a B&W internegative... but the story got killed by an editor because the witness account and the photos alike are generic. There's no drama, no human interest.

Also, Nuts and Bolts flying saucers in 1990 were so 1950's. The real action at the time was Alien Abductions

Now this is a story. Socko.

 

[deirdre]

but the story got killed by an editor because the witness account and the photos alike are generic.

disagree.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

Would you prefer the word "dull"? "Outdated"?

Why else would a story be killed at a tabloid? Because it lacked credibility? Heh

In 1990 a nuts and bolts flying saucer just floating there would be dull and grossly outdated. The witness report is rudimentary. It just seems to be there as an obligatory thing to support the hoax photos. It has all the charm of ticking off a box on a form.

All they'd be able to do is print dull, outdated hoax photos with nothing more than a caption.

There's no story. No sex appeal. There's not even a close encounter of the third kind. Let alone a sexy Alien BDSM probe scenario.

If someone disagrees, give details.

I mean the whole UFO tabloid thing had completely moved on from single witness hoax flying saucer photos. The McMinnville UFO photos were 40 years old by then.

We were only 3 years away from this...

 

[NoParty]

Would you prefer the word "dull"? "Outdated"?

Why else would a story be killed at a tabloid? Because it lacked credibility? Heh

In 1990 a nuts and bolts flying saucer just floating there would be dull and grossly outdated. The witness report is rudimentary. It just seems to be there as an obligatory thing to support the hoax photos. It has all the charm of ticking off a box on a form.

All they'd be able to do is print dull, outdated hoax photos with nothing more than a caption.

There's no story. No sex appeal. There's not even a close encounter of the third kind. Let alone a sexy Alien BDSM probe scenario.

If someone disagrees, give details.

I mean the whole UFO tabloid thing had completely moved on from single witness hoax flying saucer photos. We were only a 3 years away from this...

View attachment 78698

Who is going to believe something so outlandish?!?

(that someone, anyone, had steamy nights with Hillary?)

 

[Andreas]

At this point I think we've hit the end of the road. I've only been sticking with this because of the interesting photography issues.

I think it's just another hoax photo made by a middling amateur photographer. I could have done it at the age of 17. The witness story is entirely fictional.

Someone at the tabloid went through the motions of sending the photos to the MoD to punch up the story and a technician made a B&W internegative... but the story got killed by an editor because the witness account and the photos alike are generic. There's no drama, no human interest.

Also, Nuts and Bolts flying saucers in 1990 were so 1950's. The real action at the time was Alien Abductions.

But we must not forget that the Belgian UFO wave had just occurred, with a poor-quality photo of a fake triangular UFO appearing in magazines all over the world. I think a story like this would have interested at least some newspapers looking to attract new readers. And we know that an even more ridiculous story was published a few years later.

That said, when investigating the Calvine story today, it's easy to lose sight of what it actually is—just another UFO story. It's easy to be distracted by declassified MoD documents and former press officers telling all sorts of tales. I'm sure Andy Allan, with his lifelong experience as a photographer and access to the original negatives, might have been able to spot the hoax.

 

[JMartJr]

And we know that an even more ridiculous story was published a few years later.

Which one?

 

[deirdre]

Why else would a story be killed at a tabloid? Because it lacked credibility? Heh

because the photographer got scared and pulled his pictures.

add: dont forget Richard Grieve. like all the rest of the speculation there is really no reason to believe his story but he too said he knew the kids and they got scared. of course he also said two men in black came to the hotel...so.. either way the photogher not wanting the MOD involved in his hoax is a more realistic story pull then the paper not wanting to print it. whatever thread my paper archive link was in, go look at the other crazy lame stories they were printing in those days. i personally see no reason the paper would decide to pass on the photos.

 

[deirdre]

Which one?

the hubcap over the reservoir. although maybe better to describe as "an even more lame story was published a few years later"
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/calvine-photo-hoax-theories.12596/post-340533

 

[Andreas]

Which one?

The Craigluscar Reservoir sighting—an even less reliable story with really, really bad pictures. Yet, it still resulted in an article in the Daily Record.

 

[Andreas]

because the photographer got scared and pulled his pictures.

add: dont forget Richard Grieve. like all the rest of the speculation there is really no reason to believe his story but he too said he knew the kids and they got scared. of course he also said two men in black came to the hotel...so.. either way the photogher not wanting the MOD involved in his hoax is a more realistic story pull then the paper not wanting to print it. whatever thread my paper archive link was in, go look at the other crazy lame stories they were printing in those days. i personally see no reason the paper would decide to pass on the photos.

I totally agree with you. I don't think the Daily Record would have decided against publishing the story just because it was a potential (or probable) fake. It would have been easy to give it a somewhat mocking tone with a headline like "RAF vs. Flying Saucers" or "ET Just Arrived in Scotland".

 

[JMartJr]

the hubcap over the reservoir

The Craigluscar Reservoir sighting

Thanks. There are so many of them in various outlets, it's hard to keep them straight.

 

[Andreas]

Thanks. There are so many of them in various outlets, it's hard to keep them straight.

Yeah, sooo many of them. And I'm sure the Calvine story would have been explained long ago if it had actually resulted in an article. Instead, it took three decades for the photo to reach the public. Recollections are vague, and most of the people involved are dead. Today, the Calvine story is "exciting" precisely because it wasn't a story back then…

 

[FatPhil]

Yeah, sooo many of them. And I'm sure the Calvine story would have been explained long ago if it had actually resulted in an article. Instead, it took three decades for the photo to reach the public. Recollections are vague, and most of the people involved are dead. Today, the Calvine story is "exciting" precisely because it wasn't a story back then…

As it fades into the mists of time, with first-hand testimonies less available and less reliable, and the signal to noise ratio consequently dropping, it eventually enters the Low Information Zone, and then becomes ripe for picking.

 

[Scaramanga]

Why is it tempting to think someone might have used this primitive method? Well, the "UFO" does resemble a landscape itself—something proponents of the reflection hypothesis have pointed out. This technique could effectively hide signs of manipulation (especially since the "UFO" and the background originally came from the same image), and it would result in a chronological set of negatives. Also, if the "UFO" looked the same in all six pictures (we don't know for certain, but it has been claimed), the same cutout could have been used, requiring minimal effort from the hoaxer.

I'm increasingly of the view that that's how the Calvine photos were produced. It is by far the easiest way of producing a hoax. My own example ( somwhere on the forum....I forget where ) took just a few minutes. What's more....as long as you have existing photos in your possession you don't even specifically have to 'go' to the location to create the hoax.

There is the issue of whether the UFO could be detected as fake via the grain of the background not matching. I'm not clear how this works, as surely one is taking a new photo that has a totally new grain. Would the grain of the original photo still be detectable ?

 

[Scaramanga]

Photographic print.
Other than two very poor quality transparencies, as found in National Archives ref. DEFE 31/180/1, there is only one known existing Calvine UFO photo- the one in the Original Calvine Photo OP.
This is the photo sent by the Daily Record to Craig Lindsay, PR man at RAF Pitreavie Castle, and retained by him.
Subsequently tracked down by David Clarke (on the right, Lindsay on the left),

These are the same print ? They look quite different sizes.....

What is more, even at this distance we can see that there is more detail in the one that Clarke and Lindsay are holding ( look how much more detail and resolution there is in the clouds )....so we have been fobbed off with a lower detail copy ( the one Lindsay is holding for The Guardian ) as 'the' original when it isn't.

When do we get to peruse the real 'the original image' ?

 

[deirdre]

They look quite different sizes.....

just eyeballing, i think if lindsay tilted the photo back like in the 2man shot and stretched his thumb out it would cover about the same area of picture.
the lindsay alone shot, he does have the photo tacked onto a white backing paper..meaning he's holding a piece of white board/paper AND a photograph..i dont think it is one sheet. so its bigger that way ??

 

[Scaramanga]

just eyeballing, i think if lindsay tilted the photo back like in the 2man shot and stretched his thumb out it would cover about the same area of picture.
the lindsay alone shot, he does have the photo tacked onto a white backing paper..meaning he's holding a piece of white board/paper AND a photograph..i dont think it is one sheet. so its bigger that way ??

Well...a better measure is the head of Lindsay, which ( regardless of distance ) is at the same orientation in both examples. So, I made the heads the same size, which should correspond to the same distance.....and one can very clearly see that even without the white backing the print on the left is substantially larger. It cannot be the same print.

 

[Scaramanga]

Well...a better measure is the head of Lindsay, which ( regardless of distance ) is at the same orientation in both examples. So, I made the heads the same size, which should correspond to the same distance.....and one can very clearly see that even without the white backing the print on the left is substantially larger. It cannot be the same print.

View attachment 79136

This time I made an example and measured the actual pixel width. The 'solo' photo has a print that is actually 25.47% wider ( even leaving out the white backing )...based on making the heads the same size. Clearly the first photo leaning back will affect the vertical size....but horizontally they should be the same. Both photos are right next to the body of Lindsay, so at the same relative distance. It is hard to see how any geometry accounts for a 25% difference.

They are clearly not the same print. And notice how much more crisp and clear the clouds are in the photo with Clarke...especially the clouds on the lower left. Yet more evidence they are not the same print.

 

[deirdre]

but horizontally they should be the same.

maybe make his closest hand the same size.

 

[Scaramanga]

maybe make his closest hand the same size.

Actually I used the glasses, which are at almost the exact same orientation in both photos.....and in my side by side they are both 117 pixels wide.

 

[deirdre]

Actually I used the glasses, which are at almost the exact same orientation in both photos.....and in my side by side they are both 117 pixels wide.

yea but his hand in the white coat is alot smaller. (not that i care, we know Clarke took a photo of the original photo. so there are at least two.)

 

[John J.]

When do we get to peruse the real 'the original image' ?

I guess you apply to Sheffield Hallam University, https://www.shu.ac.uk/
Maybe via Dave Clarke? (link below).
Lindsay donated the photo (and I think granted copyright).

https://www.shu.ac.uk/about-us/our-people/staff-profiles/david-clarke#firstSection

He has a brief article on 6 of his favourite UFO pictures from the UK MoD "UFO files" on the Uni website
(the Calvine photo isn't one of them). His write-ups for each might surprise people who consider him a Ufologist.
https://www.shu.ac.uk/news/all-articles/features-and-comment/ufo-archives

 

[Scaramanga]

his hand in the white coat is alot smaller

It 'appears' so....but then that's partly because with the white coat it is rotated around and seen at a side angle. That's why I chose the glasses.

I equally don't care if there are two prints. I'd just like to think we got the clearer, sharper one. Comparing the amount of cloud detail, I don't think we did. There is detail in the 'smaller' print that simply is not there in the larger one.

 

[deirdre]

There is detail in the 'smaller' print that simply is not there in the larger one.

oh. this is best ive seen of the original (out of protective sleeve) its kinda small though, not sure if you can find a bigger shot.

Source: https://www.instagram.com/jamesfoxdirector/p/CtM2_d4PNt8/?img_index=1

 

[Scaramanga]

oh. this is best ive seen of the original (out of protective sleeve) its kinda small though

Even at a cursory glance it is somewhat more detailed than the alleged 'original' at the start of this thread.

 

[deirdre]

Even at a cursory glance it is somewhat more detailed than the alleged 'original' at the start of this thread.

yea the clouds on the left are a bit darker for sure.

 

[Mendel]

Both photos are right next to the body of Lindsay, so at the same relative distance.

No, they're not. In the indoor image, Lindsay is holding the image in front, towards the camera, which makes it look larger.

Any difference in contrast likely results from indoor lighting vs. outdoor lighting.

 

[Scaramanga]

No, they're not. In the indoor image, Lindsay is holding the image in front, towards the camera, which makes it look larger.

Any difference in contrast likely results from indoor lighting vs. outdoor lighting.

Meh. In the indoor image his right arm is just inches from his chest which means the image is pretty much resting against his chest. In the outdoor image the photo is also quite evidently level with his chest. There may be a few inches difference.....but that's not going to explain a 25% difference in size.

 

[Scaramanga]

yea the clouds on the left are a bit darker for sure.

And did someone take an iron to that mangled picture before we were presented with 'the' original that has magically had the lumps and creases ironed out ?

 

[Mendel]

In the indoor image his right arm is just inches from his chest which means the image is pretty much resting against his chest.

His hand is on the table, but his torso isn't up against table; look at the position of the head, he's sitting relaxed.

If the photo is 25 cm in front of the head, and the camera is 125 cm from the head, then the photo will be 25% larger than if it was at the same distance as the head—which it is in the outdoor picture, because Lindsay's body is turned sidewise, with the picture beside him (and less perspective effect because the camera is farther away). I also estimate 5-10% error in getting the head sizes to match, based on my measurements (the glasses are angled in one shot).

 

[Scaramanga]

If the photo is 25 cm in front of the head, and the camera is 125 cm from the head

You still don't get the creases ironed out.

 

[Ann K]

Meh. In the indoor image his right arm is just inches from his chest which means the image is pretty much resting against his chest. In the outdoor image the photo is also quite evidently level with his chest. There may be a few inches difference.....but that's not going to explain a 25% difference in size.

Look at the size of his hand. He is holding the indoor image well toward the camera. And (as explained by someone recently, and I apologize for forgetting who or where) the outdoor photo is distorted so it is wider overall, accounting for the change in proportions.

Nevertheless, the presence of a border on that photo but not on the other suggests they are two different prints from the same negative, with all the variations in paper, exposure, or focus that allows.

 

[Ann K]

Even at a cursory glance it is somewhat more detailed than the alleged 'original' at the start of this thread.

The one posted by Deirdre is indeed more detailed, and some fiddling with exposure and contrast (no, I didn't add anything ) shows a number of additional reflections, even more than I just posted in the "reflections" thread.

 

[deirdre]

And did someone take an iron to that mangled picture before we were presented with 'the' original that has magically had the lumps and creases ironed out ?

we were presented with a photo of the original. and yes i assume they ironed it a bit in photoshop.

 

[John J.]

oh. this is best ive seen of the original (out of protective sleeve) its kinda small though, not sure if you can find a bigger shot.

Even at a cursory glance it is somewhat more detailed than the alleged 'original' at the start of this thread.

I think it we should remember that picture comes via documentary maker James Fox, several of his films are about UFOs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Fox_(filmmaker)

He might have produced a tatty-looking photo and/or "enhanced" it for dramatic effect (but not with the intention of misleading anyone) if it featured, or is intended to be featured, in one of his shows. -Conjecture on my part. I know he has met Lindsay, but sometime after Dave Clarke publicised the picture.

As far as we know one Calvine UFO photograph exists. It is the one kept by Craig Lindsay, tracked down by David Clarke and then examined by Clarke's colleague/ friend Andrew Robinson. Now in the care of Sheffield Hallam University.
The (small) picture in Robinson's report doesn't look creased or crumpled.

 

[Scaramanga]

Nevertheless, the presence of a border on that photo but not on the other suggests they are two different prints from the same negative, with all the variations in paper, exposure, or focus that allows.

My understanding is that Lindsay only ever received a print and never had a negative. So the version with the white background ( which is essentially the 'original' we have ) is a copy of a print. And it seems not a particularly good one.

 

[deirdre]

I think it we should remember that picture comes via documentary maker James Fox, several of his films are about UFOs.

theres a video interview with Dave Clark..the original photo is in a protective sleeve as Fox is handling it (and CLarke confirms he is holding Lindsays original), ..so no reason really to think he didnt take it out of its sleeve to photograph the original.

 

[John J.]

Here's Fox with Lindsay, who looks a bit less enthusiastic...

From Fox's "X"/ Twitter (I don't use it),

Source: https://x.com/jamescfox/status/1665460693313748994

 

[Scaramanga]

Here's Fox with Lindsay, who looks a bit less enthusiastic...

Perhaps we can get our photos in chronological order.....as it is evident from changes of shirts, appearance, etc, that the various photos are taken some time apart.