Calvine Photo Hoax Theories

[Scaramanga]

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.

Well...if I was really conspiracy minded I'd argue that Lindsay himself actually took the photo and that's why he possesses it. Hence the mysterious 'hikers' that nobody could ever find, and his reluctance to show whose name is on the back of the photo, and why no-one has ever come forward to claim ' haha...i fooled you all these years', the negatives 'disappearing' from the Scottish newspaper ( they were never there in the first place ), and so on. My guess is that similar to some versions of the Rendlesham incident, it was all a military prank that went wrong and got taken seriously.

 

[NorCal Dave]

Well...if I was really conspiracy minded I'd argue that Lindsay himself actually took the photo and that's why he possesses it. Hence the mysterious 'hikers' that nobody could ever find, and his reluctance to show whose name is on the back of the photo, and why no-one has ever come forward to claim ' haha...i fooled you all these years', the negatives 'disappearing' from the Scottish newspaper ( they were never there in the first place ), and so on. My guess is that similar to some versions of the Rendlesham incident, it was all a military prank that went wrong and got taken seriously.

Not agreeing, but I like it! I think way back in the original I commented that almost all of the story comes from Linsday. I wouldn't accuse him of creating a hoax, but it is important to remember a lot of this comes from his memory and the handwritten notes. There is no record of the Daily Record ever talking to the supposed hikers AFAIK.

 

[Mendel]

Well...if I was really conspiracy minded I'd argue that Lindsay himself actually took the photo and that's why he possesses it.

There is absolutely no evidence of this.
And the photo editor would have to be in on it.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

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.

Absolutely agree. It's an example of forced perspective.

 

[John J.]

Well...if I was really conspiracy minded I'd argue that Lindsay himself actually took the photo and that's why he possesses it

Must admit for a long time I thought he might know more than he was saying, perhaps with the help of a young collaborator.
But it seems pretty clear the Daily Record approached Lindsay, and that the MoD returned the negatives/ photos to the Daily Record.
Lindsay continued working as a PR man for the RAF for another 9 years, and seems to have been respected (or at least liked) more than most civil servants if this old Facebook post is true*:

Of course, we can't rule anything out, but I'd be surprised if he was actively involved in a hoax.


Source: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=306269736135136&set=a.306269726135137&type=3&ref=embed_post

I don't expect many people got joyrides in a Jaguar trainer (2 seater but fully combat capable IIRC).
Maybe the pilot had to put some time in and a 2-seater was available, so Lindsay got a good send-off into the bargain.

* Not at all sure what to make of Lindsay claiming to have flown it himself for a few minutes!

 

[Andreas]

Well...if I was really conspiracy minded I'd argue that Lindsay himself actually took the photo and that's why he possesses it. Hence the mysterious 'hikers' that nobody could ever find, and his reluctance to show whose name is on the back of the photo, and why no-one has ever come forward to claim ' haha...i fooled you all these years', the negatives 'disappearing' from the Scottish newspaper ( they were never there in the first place ), and so on. My guess is that similar to some versions of the Rendlesham incident, it was all a military prank that went wrong and got taken seriously.

Yes and no. It's obviously true that most of the story comes from Lindsay, and while I have no reason to believe he is deliberately lying, I think he may have filled in some gaps over time. It just doesn't seem likely that he would remember all those details three decades later. That's why stories about hikers & chefs should be taken with a grain of salt.

That said—was he in on a hoax? We have absolutely no reason to believe he was. On the contrary, the few things we actually do know about the case suggest he wasn't.
And as for the idea of 'a military prank that went wrong and got taken seriously'—who exactly took it seriously? Not even a tabloid newspaper known for publishing stories about Nessie, aliens, and poltergeists bothered printing the photos.

 

[Scaramanga]

There is absolutely no evidence of this.
And the photo editor would have to be in on it.

There's precious little evidence of anything when it comes to Calvine. But we have to explain how the two who allegedly took the photos mysteriously just disappeared to this day...and also what purpose was served in sending Lindsay a copy. I mean...why would the RAF send a copy to their PR man, of all people, of an incident they're trying to hide ! It makes zero sense.

I have long suspected that the Rendlesham incident, 10 years earlier, was a cover story for something else. Perhaps a nuclear missile falling off a plane and into the forest. How embarrassing ! And I suspect the same is the case with Calvine.

So perhaps 'prank' is the wrong word. We already know the USAF was quite happy to 'use' UFOs as a cover for top secret craft. The British establishment would already have had Rendlesham as a template for a cover story. So...some incident occurred and the 'PR man' was assigned to create a cover story in case the truth got out. But it transpired that no story ever got out at all...so the PR man was left with his fake photos for 33 years. And the mysterious 'hikers'....they never existed.

 

[deirdre]

I mean...why would the RAF send a copy to their PR man, of all people,

they did not do that. The Daily Record newspaper sent a copy to the PR man. The PR man then had the negatives sent to RAF directly from the Daily Mirror.

But we have to explain how the two who allegedly took the photos mysteriously just disappeared to this day.

we have. there are multiple everyday possibilities.

People send UFO pictures to newspapers all the time (as the Ministry of Defense files say happened), there is nothing suspicious about this story.

 

[Andreas]

So perhaps 'prank' is the wrong word. We already know the USAF was quite happy to 'use' UFOs as a cover for top secret craft. The British establishment would already have had Rendlesham as a template for a cover story. So...some incident occurred and the 'PR man' was assigned to create a cover story in case the truth got out. But it transpired that no story ever got out at all...so the PR man was left with his fake photos for 33 years. And the mysterious 'hikers'....they never existed.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure the 'mysterious hikers' never existed, since this is most likely a deliberate hoax. Maybe the photographer acted alone, or maybe he had an accomplice. Maybe the photos were taken near Calvine in the 1990s, or maybe they were shot somewhere else at a completely different time. Who knows? But it doesn't really matter—we don't need to involve government cover-ups or secret aircraft. A hoaxer unwilling to take responsibility for his actions is explanation enough.

I mean...why would the RAF send a copy to their PR man, of all people, of an incident they're trying to hide ! It makes zero sense.

I don't understand what you mean. First of all, the RAF never sent any photo to Lindsay. And secondly, why do you think they were trying to 'hide' the incident? I haven't seen anything that points in that direction.

 

[NorCal Dave]

I have long suspected that the Rendlesham incident, 10 years earlier, was a cover story for something else. Perhaps a nuclear missile falling off a plane and into the forest. How embarrassing ! And I suspect the same is the case with Calvine.

But now you're just replacing one conspiracy with another, when no conspiracy is needed.

Rendlesham is pretty straight forward. There was a meteor or rocket re-entry or something like that one night. Then a few American security personal wondered off base into an unfamiliar area, where some of them mistook a light house for a UFO. The next night a few more Americans did the same thing. Some of the primary sources, the reports from the people there at the time, noted it was the light house.

It was later that it got blown out of proportion by a few of the men and some UK UFO enthusiasts, who have tried to profit from their sensationalized versions. Most of the fantastical details, from high radiation readings to mentally implanted binary code was added or sensationalized later.

Calvine is not remotely similar.

The Daily Record contacted Linsday about UFO photos they had received and then sent him a copy of 1 photo. He faxed that to London and the Daily Record followed up by sending the photos and negatives to London. The MoD in London reviewed the photos/negatives, produced a brief memo and supposedly sent them back to the Daily Record. The newspaper never ran the story, Linsday just kept the photo he had, and the story disappeared. It wasn't until Nick Pope mentioned the photo in his book several years later that it became a minor thing. Only when Clarke revived interest in it did most people hear about.

There is no way the Calvine story can be some sort of cover-up or distraction for another event, because nothing ever came of the photo. Until now.

 

[Andreas]

With a setup like this, a single person could have pulled off the hoax without needing an accomplice.

I made one final attempt to recreate the Calvine photo using small silhouettes attached to a sheet of glass.

This time, I placed the glass directly on the ground, with the camera also positioned at ground level and tilted slightly upward, about a meter away from the glass. A setup like this would make it possible for a single person to pull off the hoax without needing an accomplice to hold the glass.

I used an old, low-quality digital camera and disabled the autofocus to manually keep the entire scene slightly out of focus. The trees in the background are about 200 meters away, the house is 50 meters away, the tree on the right is 30 meters away, and the distance to the UFO/jet, as already mentioned, is approximately 1 meter.

Since I used a digital camera, I couldn't replicate the grainy, analog feel so prominent in the original Calvine photo—but I'm convinced it could have been created using this technique.

Some conclusions:

• The glass sheet remains invisible in the photo as long as it's clean and positioned at the right angle; reflections aren't a major issue. It's even possible to use a flash without causing noticeable reflections.
• It's relatively easy to keep all elements fairly in focus, even when some are far away and others very close to the camera.
• A glass sheet of at least 50x60 cm is a reasonable size to work with. Any smaller, and it would have to be placed unreasonably close to the camera.
• The "jet" could be a small silhouette attached to the glass—but it could also be a real jet flying in the background.

 

[Scaramanga]

they did not do that. The Daily Record newspaper sent a copy to the PR man. The PR man then had the negatives sent to RAF directly from the Daily Mirror.

No...that's not actually what the original MOD notes say. The original notes do not say that the material was sent to the Daily Record which passed it onto the PR man. They say the material was passed to RAF Pitreavie and to the Daily Record. And most importantly, the notes say 'original negatives then passed to the Daily Record'....i'e after the prior events related and not at the same time.

That is simply not the same time sequence as hikers going to Daily Record with negatives and prints, handing over the negatives, and the Daily Record then passing a single photo on to PR man Lindsay. And the MOD report does not say 'a' picture was passed to Lindsay...it says 'pictures' plural.

So we don't just have Lindsay's account, we also have the MOD notes that differ from Lindsay's account. So excuse me for wondering who is actually telling the truth. The MOD notes are just days after the incident....compared with Lindsay's memory 30 years later.

And why is Lindsay so secretive about the name on the reverse side of the photo ? Why does the name of the alleged photographer have to be kept secret ? No-one ever had issues reporting the names of witnesses of other UFO incidents. And given that the witnesses had gone to the papers its not as if they'd themselves be hiding their names. Why the secrecy ? I suspect because the real photographer is not a 'hiker' at all.

 

[Scaramanga]

People send UFO pictures to newspapers all the time (as the Ministry of Defense files say happened), there is nothing suspicious about this story.

And their name on the back of the photos is not still being kept secret 35 years later.

 

[JMartJr]

And their name on the back of the photos is not still being kept secret 35 years later.

Did we not establish somewhere upstream in one of these threads that the privacy laws in Britain require that unless the person agrees to come forward?

 

[Andreas]

So we don't just have Lindsay's account, we also have the MOD notes that differ from Lindsay's account. So excuse me for wondering who is actually telling the truth. The MOD notes are just days after the incident....compared with Lindsay's memory 30 years later.

Since we don't really know who wrote the handwritten note or when it was written, it's difficult to draw any firm conclusions from it. It appears to have been written in haste, judging by the corrected spellings of both Calvine and Pitreavie, and the sentence structure is somewhat confusing. In other words, it seems to be a rushed summary jotted down quickly, and I don't think we should take it too seriously. On the other hand, we have the photo provided by Lindsay, and the photocopies match it well. The photo was stored in a Daily Record envelope and has "Daily Record" written on the back.

And why is Lindsay so secretive about the name on the reverse side of the photo ?

The story took place three decades ago, and I find it hard to believe that Lindsay has any real idea who the photographer is at this point. Perhaps he was given a name back then—probably "Kevin Russell"—and perhaps he did make that alleged phone call (though I'm not entirely sure, as it could very well be a case of false memory). But even if he did speak to someone briefly for a couple of minutes, it's unlikely he'd remember any meaningful details after all these years. So, I wouldn't say Lindsay is necessarily being "secretive"—more likely, he's simply unaware of the photographer's true identity.

 

[Scaramanga]

Did we not establish somewhere upstream in one of these threads that the privacy laws in Britain require that unless the person agrees to come forward?

But they'd taken their story and photos to the Daily Record...a newspaper. That's not the action of anyone who wishes to remain unknown...as newspapers can publish your name without your consent. The Data Protection Act specifically allows the publication of names, etc where such information may be 'in the public interest'.

It is patently absurd for the perpetrators of this event to try to claim anonymity 35 years later. The event itself is widely publicised.

What's more, you cannot retrospectively apply the 2018 DPA back to 1990. The real law applying is probably that of breach of confidentiality, but even there one has clear exceptions. Given that Lindsay knew that the story was with the newspapers there was no reason for confidentiality. And, indeed...why would the names ever need to be kept confidential ?

 

[Scaramanga]

Since we don't really know who wrote the handwritten note or when it was written, it's difficult to draw any firm conclusions from it. It appears to have been written in haste, judging by the corrected spellings of both Calvine and Pitreavie

A report that details the exact weather conditions at the time can hardly be said to have been written in haste. My point is that the report was written immediately after the incident and does not rely on someone 'remembering' it over 30 years later.

 

[JMartJr]

But they'd taken their story and photos to the Daily Record...a newspaper. That's not the action of anyone who wishes to remain unknown...as newspapers can publish your name without your consent.

But you are allowed to give the paper a fake one.

And it is not about their willingness to have their name released -- unless they tell the MOD they're OK to release it, which they apparently have not done since the names have not been released, the MOD has to follow the laws on privacy and withhold that information for the required number of years.

 

[Scaramanga]

But you are allowed to give the paper a fake one.

And it is not about their willingness to have their name released -- unless they tell the MOD they're OK to release it, which they apparently have not done since the names have not been released, the MOD has to follow the laws on privacy and withhold that information for the required number of years.

Well...unless someone is prepared to come forward and state that they personally took the photos then I see absolutely zero reason to give that matter any consideration. No witness = no story. If the witness can't even back up what he allegedly saw, why should I give it even 0.00001 seconds of my time. It's just a random photo from nowhere.

 

[JMartJr]

Well...unless someone is prepared to come forward and state that they personally took the photos then I see absolutely zero reason to give that matter any consideration. No witness = no story. If the witness can't even back up what he allegedly saw, why should I give it even 0.00001 seconds of my time. It's just a random photo from nowhere.

I understand your point, but since the UFO community gave this picture a lot of attention, it is perhaps worth trying to demonstrate that it is just another fake UFO picture -- though efforts to do so are indeed hampered by how little actual information we have about it.

 

[John J.]

The Data Protection Act specifically allows the publication of names, etc where such information may be 'in the public interest'.

"In the public interest" is not "what interests some members of the public".
The files were released by the National Archives c. 2011 IIRC. Almost all (maybe all, full stop) names and addresses of claimants have been redacted.
Copies of DEFE 24/1940/1, DEFE 24/1940/2 and DEFE 31/180/1 attached below; have a quick look.
The National Archives probably have competent legal advice.

It is patently absurd for the perpetrators of this event to try to claim anonymity 35 years later. The event itself is widely publicised.

If they're actively trying to maintain their anonymity, it's working, so it's not absurd.

The claimant(s) might not be aware that there is continued interest in the Calvine photo- we have no reason to believe that they had a prior interest in UFOs, and if their story is a hoax, it was turned down in 1990, so they wouldn't have any reason to develop an interest in UFOs (which "real" witnesses might). It seems unlikely they live in the Calvine/ Pitlochry area.
Unless they were regular Sun readers, or like TV shows/ internet stuff about UFOs, they could be totally oblivious.

If a claimant is aware of ongoing interest, they might have their own reasons to leave it buried in the past; perhaps they have a job where perceived honesty is even more significant than it is normally held to be. Maybe there are other things about that time in their lives that they don't want to revisit. Or they're not very well informed, and genuinely fear getting into trouble with "the authorities". Or, for whatever other reason, they don't want media attention.

Of course, as a young man/ young men, if they ever did any hitchhiking along the A9 they might have been abducted by an alien driving a small red Toyota (the A9 is a hunting ground for the female alien Isserley in Michel Faber's novel Under the Skin, 2000, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Under_the_Skin_(novel); disturbing but compelling).

 

[Scaramanga]

The claimant(s) might not be aware that there is continued interest in the Calvine photo- we have no reason to believe that they had a prior interest in UFOs, and if their story is a hoax, it was turned down in 1990, so they wouldn't have any reason to develop an interest in UFOs (which "real" witnesses might). It seems unlikely they live in the Calvine/ Pitlochry area.

Its been all over the news and all over Youtube, Instagram, Discord, Facebook, Reddit, etc. Practically all the papers have mentioned it. Unless the witnesses ( and bear in mind there were allegedly two of them ) have spent the past 35 years living together in a gold mine in Yukon with no information access...I find it virtually impossible that they don't know about it.

And given that they are the ones who took the photos, you'd think they'd be the one group of people who would be interested in the matter. I'd find it impossible to believe that neither of them ever once thought ' I wonder what happened to those hoax UFO photos we took'. You can't really argue that someone who does a UFO hoax has no interest in UFOs !

 

[John J.]

Its been all over the news and all over Youtube, Instagram, Discord, Facebook, Reddit, etc.

I'm a news/ current affairs addict, but I don't recall it being a story in the broadcast media/ major news agencies that I might check out.

You can't really argue that someone who does a UFO hoax has no interest in UFOs !

Their interest might have been purely financial- get a few quid from The Daily Record.
They don't appear to have been pursuing personal fame, and they haven't continued retelling their story like many UFO enthusiasts who have claimed to see/ experience something do.

 

[Ann K]

Its been all over the news and all over Youtube, Instagram, Discord, Facebook, Reddit, etc. Practically all the papers have mentioned it. Unless the witnesses ( and bear in mind there were allegedly two of them ) have spent the past 35 years living together in a gold mine in Yukon with no information access...I find it virtually impossible that they don't know about it.

I've never seen it mentioned anywhere but on this site, and I do look at Facebook and lots of YouTube videos. Dedicated "UFOlogists" might have noticed it, but dollars to donuts not one in a hundred rational adults knows a darn thing about it. It may be a bigger story in the UK, but ...

 

[Andreas]

It is patently absurd for the perpetrators of this event to try to claim anonymity 35 years later. The event itself is widely publicised.

But you're looking at this from the wrong angle. No one is claiming anonymity. Back in 1990, the photographer's name wasn't mentioned by the Daily Record simply because they weren't interested in the story. In other words, it wasn't considered news back then, and literally no one knew about it. And why do we think anyone could give us the name of the photographer now? We know the MoD was given a name—probably "Kevin Russell"—and that's a name we already know.

A report that details the exact weather conditions at the time can hardly be said to have been written in haste. My point is that the report was written immediately after the incident and does not rely on someone 'remembering' it over 30 years later.

It a handwritten note on a paper without letterhead, date or signature. Say no more…

Its been all over the news and all over Youtube, Instagram, Discord, Facebook, Reddit, etc. Practically all the papers have mentioned it. Unless the witnesses ( and bear in mind there were allegedly two of them ) have spent the past 35 years living together in a gold mine in Yukon with no information access...I find it virtually impossible that they don't know about it.

We're pretty biased, being interested in these kinds of stories. Most people have never even heard of the story or seen the photograph.

 

[Andreas]

Well...unless someone is prepared to come forward and state that they personally took the photos then I see absolutely zero reason to give that matter any consideration. No witness = no story. If the witness can't even back up what he allegedly saw, why should I give it even 0.00001 seconds of my time. It's just a random photo from nowhere.

Well, I'd say no photo = no story. And in this case, we actually have a photo that can be analyzed. Someone simply claiming to have seen a UFO is worth noting. Personally, I don't need to know who the alleged witness is, because it doesn't really matter. It's a typical fake UFO story: a strange, large craft hovering in mid-air and then suddenly zipping off into space. It's like ufology 101 back in the 90s. It doesn't matter whether it was a local kid or a brain surgeon who took the photo.

 

[Andreas]

I'd find it impossible to believe that neither of them ever once thought ' I wonder what happened to those hoax UFO photos we took'.

Well, the photographer (we only know of one person, everything else is hearsay) knew exactly what happened. The story was rejected, and the negatives were most likely returned to him. End of story. Faking those six photos probably took an afternoon, give or take. It's actually entirely possible that the person has forgotten all about it. Let's say the photographer is still alive and just over 50 today—remembering a prank pulled in his late teens isn't exactly a given.

 

[Scaramanga]

I've never seen it mentioned anywhere but on this site

The Calvine UFO has been public news since 1996 when Nick Pope wrote about it in Open Skies, Closed Minds, which is where the tale of him having a giant sized poster of the photo behind his MOD desk also comes from. So knowledge of the incident is not something recent. Anyone with even a modicum of interest in UFOs...which is a lot of people...will have heard the story decades ago.

From about 2005 onwards one starts to find the story more widely. The matter received widespread coverage in 2015, especially with the Channel 5 'Alien Cover Up' documentary which dealt with the story...which in turn was reported by the Daily Express, Daily Mirror, Daily Mail, and others.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/weir...MoD-covered-up-pictures-that-PROVE-UFOs-exist

So who are all the alleged people living in a cave in the Outer Hebrides who've never heard of the story ??

 

[Scaramanga]

Most people have never even heard of the story or seen the photograph.

Simply not true. Along with Area 51 it was actually one of the very first things I read about on the internet in 1996. Forums back then were full of discussions of such matters. Almost anyone with even the slightest interest in UFOs was aware of the story decades ago....just as people were aware of the Nimitz incident long before the New York Times 'exposed' it.

The Channel 5 TV station in the UK even had an entire documentary 'Alien Cover Up' on the matter in 2015...and our old friend Nick Pope was behind that.

 

[Scaramanga]

It's actually entirely possible that the person has forgotten all about it. Let's say the photographer is still alive and just over 50 today—remembering a prank pulled in his late teens isn't exactly a given.

I don't know why people feel the need to keep inventing what people may or may not have done. This entire thread is a litany of ' he might have done XYZ....yes, he did XYZ'

Seriously ? He forgot all about it ? I can still recall turning all the sign posts in Penshurst around as a naughty teen in the early 70s ( never got caught ), over 50 years ago, yet some adult hoaxes a UFO in 1990...I mean how often is that part of a person's life....and he's just completely forgotten about it ?

 

[deirdre]

Well...unless someone is prepared to come forward and state that they personally took the photos then I see absolutely zero reason to give that matter any consideration. No witness = no story. If the witness can't even back up what he allegedly saw, why should I give it even 0.00001 seconds of my time. It's just a random photo from nowhere.

then why do you keep talking about it so much?

 

[Ann K]

So who are all the alleged people living in a cave in the Outer Hebrides who've never heard of the story ??

Those who are NOT in the category of those "with even a modicum of interest in UFOs". Not everyone is a consumer of sensationalism and pseudoscience, y'know. And apparently all of my Facebook friends and acquaintances fall into that category as well, as I've never had that kind of nonsense show up in my feed.

I was, I'll admit, a great consumer of sci-fi, and even read such crap as Velikovsky. Then past the age of fifteen, I grew up, laughed at my childish naïveté, and never went back. That was in the 1950s...

Perhaps your statements tell me all I want to know about the company you keep. I've never followed Nick Pope. Garbage in, garbage out.

 

[JMartJr]

Its been all over the news and all over Youtube, Instagram, Discord, Facebook, Reddit, etc. Practically all the papers have mentioned it. Unless the witnesses ( and bear in mind there were allegedly two of them ) have spent the past 35 years living together in a gold mine in Yukon with no information access...I find it virtually impossible that they don't know about it.

With one exception that HAS to be a false memory, I don't recall seeing it anywhere but here. (I have a memory of seeing it in a UFO book in High School, but this would have been a number of years before it was taken so that can't be right. Memory is a tricky thing!) Come to think of it, I'm a bit surprised that I don't see it on my social media feeds -- the algorithm throws a lot of that stuff my way. Which raises the point that for a lot of people with no interest in this stuff, the algorithms would not have sent it to them. What;s al over my feed is not what is all over my wife's feed, at all!

It is patently absurd for the perpetrators of this event to try to claim anonymity 35 years later. The event itself is widely publicised.

And yet, they haven't come forward and remain anonymous, shielded by the laws in the UK regarding privacy. They don't have to "claim" it, they get it unless they come forward and say otherwise.

Along with Area 51 it was actually one of the very first things I read about on the internet in 1996. Forums back then were full of discussions of such matters. Almost anyone with even the slightest interest in UFOs was aware of the story decades ago....just as people were aware of the Nimitz incident long before the New York Times 'exposed' it.

It would be interesting to do a "man on the street" survey, see how many people walking by have, in fact, heard of Area 51, the Nimitz incident and the Calvine UFO picture. It FEELS to me like it ought to be almost everybody, but I suspect the numbers would be lower than my gut feeling would suggest.

I can still recall turning all the sign posts in Penshurst around as a naughty teen in the early 70s ( never got caught ), over 50 years ago,

Well yes, the stuff that you remember is stuff that you remember. What about the stuff that you DON'T remember? Harder to make a list, of course, but that stuff is there.

yet some adult hoaxes a UFO in 1990...I mean how often is that part of a person's life....and he's just completely forgotten about it ?

How often? In my case, once. I remember it as it became a part of family lore (I was a kid, my dad sent it off to the Air Force and brought it up from time to time for decades until I finally felt bad enough to spill the beans. It was a classic "hang something circular from a string" UFO, shot on black and white film, we took two shots (I had some co-conspirators, I wonder if THEY remember it...) If Dad had decided I was full of it and thrown the pictures away and never spoke of them again, would I remember the incident? No way to know -- but we did stuff that was important to us constantly as kids and young adults, I remember a lot of it, but I don't remember 7000 incidents that were the most important things that I did that day (allowing for a few days off, and a few things that maybe occupied several days) from when I was, say 10 to 30 years old.

 

[Scaramanga]

then why do you keep talking about it so much?

Well...I guess someone has to refute all the wild stuff that gets made up about it. People turning Harriers into rowing boats, etc.

 

[Scaramanga]

It would be interesting to do a "man on the street" survey, see how many people walking by have, in fact, heard of Area 51, the Nimitz incident and the Calvine UFO picture. It FEELS to me like it ought to be almost everybody, but I suspect the numbers would be lower than my gut feeling would suggest.

We're not living in the 1920s with pigeon post and telegrams. Area 51 was widely known about decades ago....not least as it featured on The X Files in 1998. In fact IMBD lists over 100 movies or shows that mention Area 51 as far back as 1995.

The Nimitz video had actually been online on a forum as early as 2007.

The Calvine incident was widely reported in the UK in 2015 following a documentary specifically on the matter. It was also mentioned in The Guardian and Telegraph and other papers in 2009....

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ne...ent-probed-Britains-greatest-UFO-mystery.html

Oh...and the Rendlesham incident, there's a 'UFO Forest Trail' there now with even a lifesized model of the UFO. Its not tucked away deep in some dark remote forest. Its right next to the old air base...which in summer months gets used for car racing.

But I guess these facts don't fit the narrative.

 

[JMartJr]

We're not living in the 1920s with pigeon post and telegrams. Area 51 was widely known about decades ago....not least as it featured on The X Files in 1998. In fact IMBD lists over 100 movies or shows that mention Area 51 as far back as 1995.

The Nimitz video had actually been online on a forum as early as 2007.

The Calvine incident was widely reported in the UK in 2015 following a documentary specifically on the matter.

Oh...and the Rendlesham incident, there's a 'UFO Forest Trail' there now with even a lifesized model of the UFO. Its not tucked away deep in some dark remote forest. Its right next to the old air base...which in summer months gets used for car racing.

But I guess these facts don't fit the narrative.

Those facts tell me that the information is available and some people will have it, or recall having seen it -- it tells me nothing about how many folks are in that group. I'll agree that my sense is that the percentage would be high -- but my sense is based on MY experience, spending time interacting with folks here and elsewhere with an interest in this stuff.

We may be atypical. (Or not, which is why I thought it would be interesting to actually find out. More on that in another thread once I get home from cat food shopping -- talking with y'all is import and all, but The Cat Must Be Fed is a law...)

 

[Scaramanga]

We may be atypical

Well...maybe...but it stands to reason that the most hardened skeptical minds are ironically the least likely to be perusing the very stuff they'd be most skeptical about. And yet you can't really deal with any such phenomenon unless you do delve deep into it and the people who are into it. My skepticism about UFOs arose precisely from knowing just about every detail of many incidents. I had Jenny Randles book Sky Crash ( on the Rendlesham incident ) way back in the 80s. I followed her complete U-turn on the incident. I watched the story change over the years. I've had communication over the years with Ian Ridpath...and also with David Clarke on the infamous Guernsey UFO, and with Nick Pope.

 

[Ann K]

Well...maybe...but it stands to reason that the most hardened skeptical minds are ironically the least likely to be perusing the very stuff they'd be most skeptical about. And yet you can't really deal with any such phenomenon unless you do delve deep into it and the people who are into it.

There's another thread here about the supposed three-fingered "Nazca mummies", where there has been a lot of discussion about the particular individuals who examined them, and their qualifications to investigate. Several conclusions I have reached about the studies which might well be the case here:
(1) The claims may not pass the "smell" test to exactly those people with the specialized knowledge needed to study the matter in depth. Result? They're not interested.
(2) Those same people have other, more important things to do in their careers, things they are being paid to do.
(3) Those same people have professional reputations that might well suffer by association with fringe science.
(4) Those people, the ones you refer to as "hardened skeptics", may seem to be so precisely because they understand why some claims are untenable right from the start. Any particular claim is not the first arrival at the party, of course, and those who hear about them have already seen scams, delusions, well-refuted (yet still much-repeated) claims, and misperceptions about past events, so it makes it a lot easier to dismiss the next event as more of the same old, same old.

 

[JMartJr]

Well...maybe...but it stands to reason that the most hardened skeptical minds are ironically the least likely to be perusing the very stuff they'd be most skeptical about.

And here I may be atypical of folks here -- but various social media algorithms are feeding me this stuff in massive quantities since I tend to engage with it, explaining why certain claims are not true for the benefit of others seeing the posts (not with any expectation that the folks spamming this stuff across the Internet will change their minds or their behavior but hopefully helping at least a few folks not to be fooled.) In so doing, I have to peruse enough of it to at least know what they are claiming -- and I save time by having a saved document full of copy-pastable explanations for why there are no stars in Apollo lunar EVA pictures; or explaining that claims by flat earthers that we don't see different constellation in the summer vs. the winter so the Earth can't be a sphere orbiting the Sun are simply wrong, we do,and the fact that we do is a strong refutation of Flat Earth; or how yet another blurry indistinct picture of could-be-anything is not proof of bigfoot being real ( and here is a picture of a REAL animal that is in focus, close enough to see, and identifiable, there are a million such pictures of, say, bears because bears are real; etc... so I don't have to retype it every ^&$#^%$ time!)

 

[Scaramanga]

Those people, the ones you refer to as "hardened skeptics", may seem to be so precisely because they understand why some claims are untenable right from the start.

Sure, but then anyone who's kept a detailed knowledge of the subject for decades will know Jaime Maussan has been peddling blatant balloons as UFOs ever since at least the early 90s and his credibility was a mess years ago.

I've kept an eye on UFOs, ghosts, NDEs, spontaneous combustion....etc etc, for decades. I was one of the first to point out ( its still on a forum somewhere from early 2000s ) that the Japan Airlines UFO over Alaska was in pretty much exact alignment with a Jupiter/Mars conjunction low in the sky. I pointed out to Ian Ridpath...he was blissfully unaware of it....that there was a Moon/Jupiter close conjunction in the sky clearly visible on the night of the Rendlesham incident.

I try not to pre-judge anything. My attitude to UFOs as aliens is not that they 'can't' exist but that there is precious little evidence that they do. I'm always prepared to be surprised.