Calvine Photo Hoax Theories

[NorCal Dave]

Perhaps you're right — it's just that his behavior strikes me as a bit odd. A civil employee responsible for handling press relations calling a witness and conducting what appears to be active investigative work. We must also remember that this took place more than 30 years before Clarke reached out to him with his questions, and that at the time, Lindsay no longer had any notes.

I tend to agree with @dirdre on this one. Granted it was all 30 years ago and the details seem to have been lost, but IF we take Lindsay at his word, it doesn't sound all that weird does it. The Daily Record has the photos, possibly passed on from an Edinburgh paper, and they have a possible RAF aircraft in them. They may not have been aware of a "UFO desk" in London, so they called a local RAF press person at Pitreavie Castle (or something like that right?). As a local press liaison, the people at the paper may have already known Lindsay, though I think he was fairly new to the position at the time.

Maybe because he's new or his supervisor told him to or maybe because he took an interest in the photo, Lindsay makes a quick phone call to the supposed photographer to confirm the story. This assumes the Daily Record already had the same story and had passed it to Lindsay, which seems likely. Just me, I think he called because he found it interesting, that's why he kept the photo for 30 years, that's why he was waiting for Clarke to find him and I wouldn't be surprised if he somehow got word to Clarke that he had the photo once he knew there was interest in it. In his interview he kinda plays up the mystery of the story, the floating and the silence and that this was something strange that needed looking into. He doesn't overplay his part in the story, the way Pope often does about his UFO position, but he is the guy that gets the ball rolling.

I've figured that once the Daily Record was forwarding the photos to the RAF in London, they likely would have had someone go up to Calvine and really check on the story, or at the very least do some more calling around, not just phoning a hotel and talking to the supposed photographer. I think the story fell apart under scrutiny and with the mod saying it was basically impossible, they figured it wasn't worth running the photos.

Nevertheless, here we are in multiple threads with somewhere around 60 pages and thousands of comments, still discussing the minute details of this largely unremarkable photo.

 

[Ann K]

Nevertheless, here we are in multiple threads with somewhere around 60 pages and thousands of comments, still discussing the minute details of this largely unremarkable photo.

I've been wondering if it was a popular thing, there were other apocryphal "sightings" around this time, such that every new one (especially from a teenager who might want a few minutes of fame or a few dollars from a publisher) occasioned the response of a deep sigh and an internal "Christ, here's another one". Closer study of the photo might have been done pro forma with little serious investigation.

 

[Andreas]

I've figured that once the Daily Record was forwarding the photos to the RAF in London, they likely would have had someone go up to Calvine and really check on the story, or at the very least do some more calling around

I just don't understand why they would do that. I mean, either the plane is a genuine jet flying over Calvine on 4 August 1990, or the story is fake (fake photos and/or a fake backstory), right? Any serious investigation of this case would mainly have been conducted within the MoD, not by interviewing witnesses. The key difference between this case and other "UFO stories" is that, if the photos are genuine, then the MoD would already know what was going on — because it's their jet (or, less likely, a U.S. Harrier that had been granted clearance to fly over Scotland). And if they knew nothing about it (no jets flying in the area at the given time and date), then it must have been a hoax, pointless to investigate.

Closer study of the photo might have been done pro forma with little serious investigation.

Yes, I really think you're right. Nothing in the official documents declassified by the MoD indicates that a thorough investigation took place. The negatives were returned after only a few days, and when the investigation was resumed a year later, the crude "vu-foils" were used — suggesting that no high-quality material, such as the original photos or negatives, was available anymore. I really don't think anyone took this that seriously, at least not in 1990.

 

[John J.]

I can see only two possibilities: either Lindsay carried out this investigation on his own initiative, out of pure curiosity, or the story about the phone call never actually happened.

I think (but obviously don't know) that the former is more likely. Maybe for his own curiosity, maybe to try and verify some of the claimed details before passing the story up the chain or both. It might have been beyond his remit (not expected as part of his job), but if so it was perhaps understandable, unlikely to do any harm, take up too much of his worktime or incur official disapproval and shows a bit of initiative.

In the unlikely event that the claimed sighting had any security/ defence implications, Craig Lindsay was an MoD civil servant; he (like Nick Pope) would have been obliged to sign the Official Secrets Act and might reasonably have encountered classified information in the workplace.
He shared what he found with the appropriate people. Lindsay was trying to gather information about a sighting by (supposedly) two members of the public in an area accessible to anyone.

i would maybe phrase it as "preliminary investigative work". doesnt seem odd to me personally

Agreed. It wasn't a formal investigation, more a brief follow-up of the lead given, perhaps reflecting Lindsay's background as a press man.
There isn't really any evidence of an official investigation other than the UFO desk (Sec (AS) 2a) of DI55 forwarding the pictures for examination, and after that probably some memos exchanged about the whereabouts of Harriers. There was awareness that the story might be published
by the Daily Record, but no evidence of any attempts to prevent this. The "steps to be taken" advisory memo was probably to prevent the relevant minister(s) being "ambushed" by any unexpected questions if the story had been run; lack of knowledge of the incident might have been politically embarrassing but not of defence significance.

@Andreas' (and others') consideration of the possibilities re. who communicated what to whom, the sources/ contexts of what little documentary evidence we have and the reliability of those sources is very useful and might affect how the Calvine events are interpreted.
Collectively, we have the problems that recall is fallible, the paper chain is sparse and difficult to contextualise and the level of "official" interest hard to gauge (though my suspicion is there was very little serious interest once it was established there probably weren't military aircraft in the area at the claimed time of the photos).
I have wondered if one or two people whose names we connect with the Calvine events might have known more than they have said, or perhaps privately have different views than those made public, but that would be pure conjecture.

 

[deirdre]

I just don't understand why they would do that.

because witnesses lie.

maybe the photographer was actually in Hillyhock canoodling with his best friends girlfriend on July 26th. And since the best friend already knows Hillyhock is his canoodling place and is already wondering where his gf disappeared to on July 26th, the photographer lied about date and location.

 

[NoParty]

So, are we all braced for the 1,000 AI UFO/UAP videos, coming at us in 2026?

 

[Andreas]

because witnesses lie.

Yeah, but if they already knew for a fact that none of their jets were flying in the Calvine area that weekend, then the whole thing would essentially be debunked already. I don't think the MoD would have used resources to "debunk" UFO stories.

 

[Andreas]

So, are we all braced for the 1,000 AI UFO/UAP videos, coming at us in 2026?

I guess that's why I love the Calvine case. It's analog, like the beautiful fakes by Meyer and Adamski. Old school kitchen utensils. No AI "flying orbs"-crap.

 

[deirdre]

Yeah, but if they already knew for a fact that none of their jets were flying in the Calvine area that weekend, then the whole thing would essentially be debunked already. I don't think the MoD would have used resources to "debunk" UFO stories.

what? Governments aren't in business to debunk ufo stories.

 

[Andreas]

what? Governments aren't in business to debunk ufo stories.

Are they really? To me, it seems more likely that they were simply trying to determine what was of national interest and what was not. If some kid had taken fake photos, I don't think they would have cared.

 

[John J.]

what? Governments aren't in business to debunk ufo stories.

I suppose the existence at that time of Sec (AS) 2a ("the UFO desk") within the UK Ministry of Defence suggests that a government department was investigating some UFO reports.

But kind of agree, they weren't in the business of debunking as such; they didn't follow up every report and try and find a likely explanation, just tried to ascertain if some reports had defence significance. None ever did, at least according to the MoD,

The files also show that in 2009, Defence Minister Bob Ainsworth was told that in more than 50 years "no UFO sighting reported to [MoD] has ever revealed anything to suggest an extra-terrestrial presence or military threat to the UK" (DEFE 24/2458/1). This led to their decision to close the UFO Desk and with it the UFO hotline and dedicated email address.

National Archives press release, "UFO Desk: Closed - Last Tranche of UFO Files Released", https://cdn.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/final-tranche-of-UFO-files-released.pdf

 

[JMartJr]

National Archives press release, "UFO Desk: Closed - Last Tranche of UFO Files Released", https://cdn.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/final-tranche-of-UFO-files-released.pdf

Nice, another case of "government disclosure" where what was disclosed was not what the Big UFO industry wanted, and so presumably does not count.

 

[Charlie Wiser]

Clarke, on the other hand, is a far more down-to-earth character, and his main hypothesis seems to be that it's a hoax

This post will cover a lot of ground and is a response to the claim that a hoax is Clarke's main hypothesis. Tbh this is extremely disappointing to hear given Clarke has led the public to believe a black project is his main hypothesis, as I will demonstrate.

Clarke has not imo examined the model hoax hypothesis in good faith. His photography expert Andrew Robinson has all but dismissed it, such as by concluding the object is ~30m in size. The following analysis on their approach includes my opinions that I hope pass muster on Metabunk - I have provided evidence to support them.

* * * * *​

Here in 2023 Clarke is inaccurately presenting Wim van Utrecht's "Christmas star" hypothesis with a 60cm patterned lampshade. This presentation bears no resemblance to van Utrecht's reconstruction, does not accurately convey how the star was photographed (either by van Utrecht or - allegedly - by the hoaxers), and makes the hypothesis look silly. The very features of the specific ornament van Utrecht used for his photos are what makes his hypothesis compelling (shape, size, glitter coating, availability).

Robinson told me (personal email) this was not an attempt at a reconstruction, yet the caption on Clarke's blog reads: "Is the Calvine UFO a Christmas tree ornament? In 2023 we tried to reproduce the hoax in the presence of a live studio audience."

(As an aside, Clarke's blog post link to van Utrecht's paper is broken, so readers can't easily check his research for themselves.)

(c) David Clarke, reproduced for research, study, criticism, review, parody and satire
Source: CALVINE UFO REVISITED, David Clarke, June 2024

With this next statement from the same blog, I can't come to any other conclusion but that imo Clarke is not approaching the hoax hypotheses in good faith:

The proponents of these [hoax] theories are all convinced they have 'solved' the mystery. But they cannot all have solved it as the theories are mutually contradictory: the UFO cannot be both a reflection of a rock and a dangling ornament.

...which again is super frustrating if a hoax is now his main hypothesis, or is even on his list of plausible hypotheses. He's mocking the certainty with which debunkers each believe their pet theory, a comment that is completely irrelevant to whether any of them turn out to be correct. Why does it matter that different theories are mutually contradictory? Where is the problem in the idea that some debunkers must be wrong in order for one debunker to be right?

He repeated himself in this tweet:

But what about a dangling Christmas ornament or even a rock in a pond? These are the three most popular explanations. But logically it can't be all three of them at once?!

Source: https://x.com/shuclarke/status/1873735746101932307


To be frank, those statements are so intellectually bankrupt that I lost respect for Clarke in one fell swoop. (I acknowledge the value of his extensive research on the case.)

* * * * *​

When describing van Utrect's Xmas star theory, Clarke acknowledges the possibility of an "ingenious" use of model planes, but then later in the article he assumes the planes are real in order to dismiss theories that other mundane objects could have been used for the UFO:

Skeptic Mick West has suggested the UFO could be something quite ordinary such as a hovering kite or perhaps a balloon or airship. But this and the other theories do not satisfactorily explain the presence in at least four of the six images of the jet aircraft identified as a Harrier.

This seems intellectually dishonest imo.

(Note: If the planes are real, used as backdrop for well-timed photos of a UFO model hung near the camera - which imo might be simpler than hanging model planes - any evidence attempting to debunk this idea with data about what planes were flying around Calvine at that time is not relevant until we know for certain the date and location of the photo(s). Which we don't know for certain.)

Meanwhile, he quotes Robinson saying "Even those [hoax theories] that might be plausible create more problems than they solve." - without stating what those additional problems are for each theory. Again, this does not appear to be said in good-faith.

* * * * *​

Robinson addresses the theory that the planes are models, but "given the available evidence I think this is highly unlikely" because it "would be very hard to produce [sequential photos] with TWO hanging models on a windy Scottish hillside." Robinson's lack of skill and/or imagination regarding trick photography is not an admirable reason for anyone to favor his alt-option: a magic diamond craft.

He used the same 60cm paper lampshade - which he mistakenly (to be polite) calls "a similar Christmas decoration"! - to analyze the Christmas star theory with outdoor shots, making no attempt (unlike van Utrecht) to make his photos look like the Calvine photo. So, what was the point except to debunk the theory with a strawman? Why are they doing this?

(c) Andrew Robinson, reproduced for research, study, criticism, review, parody and satire
Source: Is the Calvine UFO actually a Christmas decoration?, Andrew Robinson, Oct 2024.

And despite the similarity of van Utrecht's photos to the Calvine photo, Robinson concludes: "there is no evidence" that a Christmas star was used. Is not the very similarity of the photos the evidence?

(c) Wim van Utrecht. Source: A UFO with a High X(-mas) factor, Wim van Utrecht, Aug 2022
My description: Recreations using a 34cm glitter-coated 3D star, showing (1) how the light creates uneven patches on the glitter surface, (2) the similar dimensions and bead matching the thingy on the Calvine UFO, and (3) the shadows created by the forward-facing arm which are apparent on the Calvine UFO.

* * * * *​

In the blog above, Clarke states his two preferred theories are a hoax (essentially dismissed, and not in good faith imo) and a black project craft. His latter theory does not incorporate evidence for the existence of anti-gravity propulsion as described by the witness. To not even mention it makes this a useless theory, given no evidence of anti-gravity propulsion in the world today, let alone 30 years ago. Does Clarke not mention it because he thinks the witness was lying about the craft's movements? And if he was lying, doesn't that make him non-credible? And if he's non-credible, why does Clarke leave the reader with the overall impression that a black project is his #1 theory?

* * * * *​

At the 30th anniversary event at Blair Atholl last August, Clarke indirectly quotes investigative journalist and retired RAF civil servant Michael Mulford, saying:

that we [Clarke et al] had proved 'beyond reasonable doubt' our contention that the UFO was likely to have been a secret project involving the US and UK military...
A vote taken from the stage during the Q&A found that a majority agreed with Michael Mulford that we had proved our theory as to the likely origin of the story.

Source: CALVINE REVISITED, David Clarke, Aug 2025

I haven't found anything more recent where Clarke says anything to suggest a black project is not his main hypothesis. If a hoax is his main hypothesis, it's disappointing that he dismisses hoax theories with strawmen and illogic whenever he talks about them publicly.

* * * * *​

A final irritation: Included in that event write-up is Clarke's reminder of how the photo needs to be credited when reproduced:

with permission of Craig Lindsay/Sheffield Hallam University

But why? Craig Lindsay stole that photo from his workplace. I don't care that he did, although one would hope this means it was never classified, but that also means it wasn't considered at the time to be a black project craft. But the copyright on the photo itself says Kevin Russell. So, why is there no reminder to credit him? The handwritten note is contemporaneous, and Clarke accepts it's accurate, i.e. Kevin Russell took the photo. Therefore, Kevin Russell owns the copyright.

When I used the photo in my blog, Robinson told me to:

credit (or remove) the reproduction of the Calvine image you include (it should be credited "with permission of Craig Lindsay/Sheffield Hallam University") to avoid infringing the University's copyright

So he's claiming SHU owns the copyright? Why do Lindsay or SHU want credit for the use of a donated, stolen photo that someone else took? (I chose to credit (c) Kevin Russell.)

Source: PHOTOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS OF THE CALVINE UFO PHOTOGRAPH, Andrew Robinson, June 2024.
My description: This is a screenshot from the pdf, where in his caption he appears to have appropriated the copyright for himself... because he took a photo of the photo?!

This (misguided) insistence around claiming credit and copyright may seem tangential but imo it's indicative of the value they place on the photo, or are hoping to place on the photo, regarding its position in ufology lore and their personal stake in the case. A couple of lads stringing up a bauble is a theory neither of them is openly examining in good faith imo. It's embarrassing if true: it means Clarke's years of research on the MoD/black project angle are invalidated and multiple people told him tall tales, and it means Robinson's expert opinion on the photo is laughably wrong. The photo becomes worthless except as an example of how a modern myth evolved.

Clarke's input to the case would be so much more interesting to me if he approached it as a folklorist.

[Emphases mine]

 

[Andreas]

Clarke has not imo examined the model hoax hypothesis in good faith.

I've had a lot of contact with Clarke recently, and it is quite obvious that he believes the case is either a hoax or connected to some kind of secret "black project." However, he admitted that he actually finds it difficult to believe that such a craft could have been kept from the public for more than 30 years — yet, for some reason, he still keeps this idea as a plausible explanation. He referred to the 1989 "sighting" of a triangular craft over the North Sea as an example of observations that might be linked to the Calvine case. Basically, I agree with him that the most likely explanations are either a hoax or some kind of military aircraft. But we still have to examine the plausibility of the latter. And, all things considered, I think we can rule that out, leaving the hoax hypothesis as the last viable explanation.

Robinson addresses the theory that the planes are models, but "given the available evidence I think this is highly unlikely" because it "would be very hard to produce [sequential photos] with TWO hanging models on a windy Scottish hillside." Robinson's lack of skill and/or imagination regarding trick photography is not an admirable reason for anyone to favor his alt-option: a magic diamond craft.

I have shown my recreation photos to Robinson and explained to him that it is fairly easy to create such a scene using small models and fishing wire. However, he has not really engaged with that point, so I assume his conclusion in the analysis still stands. I think, though, that we may actually be talking about slightly different things, which is why we are not fully understanding each other. Personally, I am discussing the possibility that the photograph could be a hoax created using small models on strings. Robinson and Clarke often respond that we cannot know that for certain. To me, that does not really matter. If the photograph could be a hoax, then it cannot be considered proof of anything, especially in the absence of supporting evidence.

Does Clarke not mention it because he thinks the witness was lying about the craft's movements? And if he was lying, doesn't that make him non-credible? And if he's non-credible, why does Clarke leave the reader with the overall impression that a black project is his #1 theory?

This is the main point, I think. To me, it is possible that we are looking at some kind of military exercise and that the object is a radar deflector or a balloon seen from an unusual angle — in other words, something mundane that just happened to look extraordinary. But if that is the case, then the photographer must have been lying about what he saw. And if he was lying, why should we trust anything in his story? That is why I personally choose to dismiss this hypothesis.

I actually asked Clarke about the possibility that the object might have been something like a balloon or reflector, but he seemed to dismiss that idea. He wrote:

"The photos were given to the newspaper on a plate. They had a world exclusive. Yet it was not used and the Daily Record news editor, who saw the photos at the time, cannot explain why it was not used. I find it difficult to accept that would have happened if the photos were simply the product of a joke arising from a kite festival. Or some random photo that someone took of a military exercise involving blimps and radar targets."

In other words, the "US reconnaissance platform" theory seems to be a way for him to explain why the photos were not published. To me, however, that is not particularly relevant, since we simply do not know the real reason. Perhaps the photo editor suspected a hoax and rejected the photos. Perhaps the photographer got nervous after being contacted by the MoD and withdrew permission for publication. Introducing a mysterious experimental craft powered by anti-gravity engines simply is not necessary.

As a summary, I think Clarke is a reasonable and grounded person, but he has drawn some conclusions in the Calvine case that I simply cannot understand. For some reason, it seems as if both Clarke and Robinson are under the impression that a hoax would be very difficult to orchestrate, and their conclusions therefore appear to be based on this assumption. But if it is actually relatively easy to hoax a photograph like this, why jump to explanations involving super-secret flying diamonds developed by Lockheed Martin? That's why I have focused on recreating the scene using models. It's not about proving exactly how it was done (could've been a Christmas ornament, could've been a kite, or something else), it's about proving that it could have been done.

 

[John J.]

A final irritation: Included in that event write-up is Clarke's reminder of how the photo needs to be credited when reproduced:

Thinking about it, it's hard to see how David Clarke can insist on being credited considering the circumstances. It might be relevant that he (or Lindsay, or Sheffield Hallam University) haven't, AFAIK, claimed to have copyright of the photo.
In effect he's claiming credit for scanning the photo. He/ SHU have de facto control over physical access to the photo, though it must be highly unlikely that they have copyright:

There's no reason that we know of to think that the photographer knew that Craig Lindsay would privately retain a copy. It must be vastly improbable that the photographer assented to Lindsay acquiring copyright and it can't be correct that Craig Lindsay had any right to personally copy / retain copies, or acquire copyright, of images sent via him, because of his role, for the opinion of others in the MoD/ RAF.

Copywrite for photographs in the UK runs

From date of the creation of the work until 70 years following the authors death.

"Copyright notice: duration of copyright (term)", Intellectual Property Office, GOV.UK website (UK government website),
https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...m/copyright-notice-duration-of-copyright-term

It seems the Daily Record provided Lindsay with (a print of) the photo as part of their effort to get an RAF/ MoD opinion. There is no evidence that it was intended as a personal gift to Lindsay (though perhaps they weren't necessarily expecting it to be returned).
If it were argued Lindsay made a copy himself which somehow wasn't covered by the original photographer's copyright (which must be improbable, subverting the whole idea of "copyright"), and remembering he only had access to the photo due to his work role, the Intellectual Property Office says (under Crown copyright works)

Crown copyright works

Works made by the Crown or an officer or servant of the Crown in the course of their duties (e.g. an employee of a Government department).

125 years from creation. 50 years from commercial publication, if published within 75 years of creation.

Of course, we might not know the true identity of the original photographer. But the copyright laws anticipate this;
under "Anonymous or pseudonymous works (Works of unknown authorship)",

In the case of anonymous or pseudonymous works, the use of a work is allowed where it is not possible to ascertain the identity of the author. It must be reasonable to assume that copyright has expired, or the author died over 70 years ago.

I very much doubt the MoD is at all bothered by David Clarke/ Sheffield Hallam University physically possessing the photo.
But having put it in the public realm, it's hard to see how Clarke can insist on the right to be credited.
He didn't take it, the original photographer almost certainly has copyright (even if the name Kevin Russell is a pseudonym), and Lindsay's right to own the photo in the first place might be questionable.

 

[deirdre]

Source: PHOTOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS OF THE CALVINE UFO PHOTOGRAPH, Andrew Robinson, June 2024.
My description: This is a screenshot from the pdf, where in his caption he appears to have appropriated the copyright for himself... because he took a photo of the photo?!

the back-of-the-photo photo would be Andrew Robinson's copyright. It IS Robinson's copyright.
and unless Robinson signed over his copyright to the BACK-OF-THE-PHOTO photo, then the university does not own copyright.

Robinson cannot claim copyright to the dual-sided photo he took. It is transformative, but that does not give you permission to copyright or to make money off it.

The original photographer (or the Daily Record, if DR bought the copyright) owns the actual photo of the UFO. The front side of the physical photograph.

As a summary, I think Clarke is a reasonable and grounded person, but he has drawn some conclusions in the Calvine case that I simply cannot understand

maybe because "black op project" puts butts in seats?

 

[John J.]

National Archives press release, "UFO Desk: Closed - Last Tranche of UFO Files Released", https://cdn.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/final-tranche-of-UFO-files-released.pdf

Nice, another case of "government disclosure" where what was disclosed was not what the Big UFO industry wanted, and so presumably does not count.

PDF of three tranches of the releases in post #421 earlier in the thread if anyone's interested.

The biggest disclosures might be how bad Sec (AS) 2's filing was, and their periodic inability to keep the photocopier topped up with ink.
You'd think each processed report would have key details recorded on a standardized cover sheet, but you'd be wrong (though a couple of formats are used repeatedly).

Off-topic, but flicking through DEFE 31-180-1 again, I noticed that for several claims (PDF pages 4, 8, 24, 26, 69, 75, 85) it is reported that there was "No smell". I'm guessing this was something asked of the witness, not something most would think to mention (unless there was a smell peculiar to the event).

There are a few photocopied pages from popular science/ aviation magazines covering speculation about future aircraft / supposed prototypes, which (I feel) give an impression of a rather amateurish set up. You'd think they would've had better sources (e.g. technical/ scientific journals, material from defence/ aerospace manufacturers).
Interestingly, David Clarke wrote

During this time, the MoD's publicly acknowledged branch Secretariat (Air Staff) 2, popularly known as the UFO desk, copied all sighting reports they received to their opposite numbers in the DIS [Defence Intelligence Staff]. But they had no 'need to know' what happened to the data they sent to intelligence staffers.

"Why Britain's MoD closed the UFO files", David Clarke 07 July 2022 https://www.uapmedia.uk/articles/ufodeskclosed_format-amp
Not sure how accurate the article is (an image of part of a document might be be miscaptioned) but Clarke's assessment of Sec (AS) 2's position in the intel "pecking order" might be realistic.

One popular aviation magazine article filed away was "Scientists' and Engineers' Dreams Taking To Skies as 'Black' Aircraft", Aviation Week and Space Technology, 24 December 1990, William B/ Scott.
It has this image (I think posted by @Duke earlier);

Caption for picture reads

Unmanned diamond-shaped hypersonic vehicle has control surfaces on leading and trailing edges, and 121 ports for dispensing nuclear warheads (insert, lower left). Conventional powerplants boost the aircraft to supersonic speeds, where an external burning mechanism takes over.

Quite why you'd want to build a cutting-edge hypersonic vehicle which uses springs to propel nukes in WWI shell casings (no aerodynamic tail end to reduce drag) downwards onto a target is anyone's guess. The whole thing is utterly grotesque.

David Clarke got to sort through the Sec (AS) 2 files before they became available through the National Archives, and would have seen this. Maybe it had some influence in making the idea of secret diamond-shaped American aircraft more plausible.