Claim: 1990 Calvine UFO

Status
Not open for further replies.
P

ParanoidSkeptic2

Active Member
For discussion of the "Original" photo, see: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/claim-original-calvine-ufo-photo.12571/


Around the 4th of August, in 1990, two men supposedly took 6 photographs of a diamond shaped UFO in the sky accompanied by Harriers. This was first brought up by Nick Pope in his 1996 book Open Skies, Closed Minds. The story somewhat blew up in 2009 when it was released by the National Archive, no photos accompanied it but a photocopy of the trace was with it
1611498735075.png

Nick Pope teamed up with an artist to do a representation based on the photocopy and Pope's memory, this it what was produced. According to Pope, the rendition is "very accurate"
1611498429242.png

The photos are apparently hidden away and were meant to be released in 2021 but apparently the ministry extended the time it will take for the photos to be released for another 50 years, leading many believers to say that this adds credibility to the claim


A 30-year rule meant it was due to be declassified on January 1 — but the Ministry of Defence has now blocked release until 2072 without explanation.

Photographs were taken by two Perthshire hikers who watched the “diamond-shaped metallic craft” for ten minutes before it shot up vertically out of sight.

They also claimed to see military jets fly a series of low-level passes.
Content from External Source
Source

I'll also attach the actual report from the archives here
1611501710459.png
1611501732583.png
Source

The dimensions of the aircraft vary from source to source, some say it was 75 feet, some say 80 feet and some say 100 feet in diameter. Pope has really hyped this up as one of the most astonishing photos he ever saw.

There are a few problems with this story, the photos were apparently taken at 9pm in Scotland but Pope has said that the photo was seen in broad daylight, which is odd as the sunset was at 9:17 pm.

The claim is that the photograph was taken at 9pm. However, when I looked up the time of sunset, the sun actually set at 9:17pm that night in Perthshire. Would there have been sufficient light to take the photograph as it has been described? The photograph described by Nick Pope is not typical of something taken around sunset in Scotland. The reconstruction (below) looks more like a typical afternoon photograph. And another question: would two walkers have wanted to be up there knowing they had to come back down in the dark? I considered the possibility of a tourist getting caught out, but sunset in London that day was at 8:44pm so anyone from further south would have expected itt o get dark sooner.
Content from External Source
Also, no scale of the photo has been established, the diamond has just been referred to as big .
As relates to the unidentified object in the original photo it is hard to tell from the sketch version, but there is no scale so we don't know if it is a small object close to the camera or a large one further away. Because we are comparing it to the Harrier and we know how big it is then the object seem to be very large, but it might not be.
Content from External Source
Source

America denied that it was their Aircraft but a few people on the ministry didn't believe them, some people on the ministry asserted that it can't be Russian or American.

Of course, many assume extra-terrestrial and not much skeptical investigation was done into it (aside from the blog source) so it's hailed as an inexplicable proof of aliens. What could be a more likely explanation? I don't know why, but this reminds me a bit of the tic-tac UFO story
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I dont recall photocopies being that bad in 1990. I dont know who David Clark is (and dont want to spend time or money digging through the National Archives to verify but: )

Article:
In July 1996, prompted by Pope’s account, Don Valley MP Martin Redmond, tabled a parliamentary question on the Calvine photograph. In reply, MoD said: “A number of negatives associated with the sighting were examined by staff responsible for air defence matters. Since it was judged they contained nothing of defence significance the negatives were not retained and we have no record of any photographs having been taken from them.” (Hansard, written answers, 23 July 1996).
 
deirdre said:
I dont recall photocopies being that bad in 1990. I dont know who David Clark is (and dont want to spend time or money digging through the National Archives to verify but: )

Article: In July 1996, prompted by Pope’s account, Don Valley MP Martin Redmond, tabled a parliamentary question on the Calvine photograph. In reply, MoD said: “A number of negatives associated with the sighting were examined by staff responsible for air defence matters. Since it was judged they contained nothing of defence significance the negatives were not retained and we have no record of any photographs having been taken from them.” (Hansard, written answers, 23 July 1996).
Click to expand...
Hmm, could it be just Nick Pope hyping something that isn't there?

Interestingly, the thing about the extra 50 years, the only reference I can find are red top tabloids which are less than reliable.
 
and what's with this little spinny thing on the back. it looks like a bath toy or a blimp. Do aliens use blimp technology?
1611509127655.png
 
here is the file the photocopy pic (image 36), but it seems to be associated with a different ufo sighting. i'm on page 66 now and not seeing any Calvine connection.

https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C10232694
June 1991-March 1992


(the report you link is in a completely different file of releases.. http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C10232693
Jan 1990-June 1991
page 156-158)


is Nick Pope misremembering the file?


From photo file:
https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C10232694
June 1991-March 1992
this is image 30: (is about American Black Mantas)



Image_030.jpg


image 35:
Image_035.jpg

image 36:
2021-01-24_11-52-17.jpg
 

Attachments

  • DEFE-31-180-1.pdf
    36.6 MB · Views: 780
Last edited by a moderator:
As a bit of a plane-geek.....I do find it unusual that a Harrier (ground attack aircraft) would be used to intercept a UFO. Its also strange that a Harrier would be scrambled to one in Scotland. Harriers were not based there in 1990 - however Tornados and Phantoms were based at RAF Leuchars (50 miles away and on Quick Reaction Alert ), which is much closer than the nearest Harrier base (RAF Wittering or Cottesmore at ~320 miles.). It is possible that it could just have been flying by, but I think this its unlikely as the RAF tend not to do training flights at 9pm on Saturday evenings.
 
That reputedly real picture reminds me of an encounter a person posted at Historum years ago, that I collected. Fwiw:

"I had just gotten off from work as a telemarketer and I was in a Miami Suburb waiting for the bus at approx 9 pm. There was a slight drizzle and a fog at about 100 feet elevation. The street where I was waiting for the bus was practically deserted and the traffic was very scarce. I lived at the Gibson Hotel at that time which is located in downtown Miami. I was looking in that direction when I saw the white round light approaching silently at approx 3mph. I recognized it as the same light I had seen several nights before late at night from my hotel window but was traveling at a much higher elevation from the suburbs towards downtown Miami. It had the same strange characteristic of suddenly shaking horizontally (ha! forgot about that part (TF)). It was also entirely silent which ruled out a helicopter or plane.

I had assumed that the light itself was the entire craft but as it turned out the light was merely attached to its side. I only realized this as the backward reflection from it dimly illuminated the rest of its form which appeared to be that of two pyramids attached at their bases. I would say its distance from me when I noticed this was perhaps one hundred feet. It was enormous and dwarfed the house over which it was passing. I assumed it was going to continue on its way when it suddenly stopped.

Then it suddenly doused its white frontal light and shifted it to focus on me for approx three seconds. Then it used a red and then a green lights and did the same. These lights were the most intense lights I have ever seen in terms of purity. Not a flicker. They were not blinding either.

What bothered me most was that the backward reflections from these light revealed what appeared to have been a hull that seemed organic and not metallic. It had this rather brownish tinge. Also, it was effortlessly defying gravity without any sound of any kind.

Once it had focused those lights on me and I had stood stupidly there instead of running like I should have but didn't for some strange reason, it then doused its light and re-lit it at its rim toward my left. That was the direction it had been traveling before it stopped. It then made a slight right turn towards what I knew was the Miami Airport. I gazed at it as it went and fluctuated horizontally now and then as it had done on its approach. It was traveling just below the fog cover as it had before.

Moments later my bus arrived. Got home and noticed that there was time missing. I figured that maybe I had imagined the whole thing. In fact, I hoped I had because it left me with an uneasy feeling as if I had been abused ion some way. Unfortunately, the next morning the newspaper headline was announcing that a UFO had played havoc with Miami Airport traffic the night before. There went my peace of mind.

Have I attempted to find out what happened during that missing time? No I havent. Why? Because I really don't want to know since it isn't going to do me any good one way or the other. I just wish it never happened to be honest."

--"Radrook
 
Dr David Clarke has some interesting material on this matter here: https://drdavidclarke.co.uk/2018/06/16/black-projects-ufos-and-the-mysterious-mo-d-notice/

There's one particular photo on the page, but it's marked as copyrighted, so I've not reproduced it here.

It's of a declassified document that refers to the MoD's possession of ASTRA/AURORA photos and 35mm slides, plus the issuance of a 1990s D-notice to the press. One imagines that these could all refer to Calvine, but they just as easily could also refer to another incident, publically known or unknown.
 
banditsat12oclock said:
There's one particular photo on the page, but it's marked as copyrighted, so I've not reproduced it here.
Click to expand...
the doc in the photo says exactly (i did not add the bold):
Article:
dated 22 March 2000



UK RESTRICTED
55/108/15

To: [redacted]
From: [redacted]
Copy to: [redacted]

WRAP UP OF UAP MATERIAL

"This is a note to report that the wrap-up of the department's UAP material is completed, subject to the distribution of the set of reports. Reports prepared for distribution have been passed to [redacted] in readiness for action when the covering letter becomes available.

All master copies together with their soft copy discs for the 4 parts of the UAP Report have been left with in the reports library [redacted]. The disc for Volumne 3 is Secret, the rest UK Restricted. Imagery used that is not on the discs is also with this material.

Selected vu-graphs (though insufficient for an up to date final presentation), with some 35mm slides, have been placed onn the above remaining file, together with a sample of the last three UAP reports. The remaining ASTRA/AURORA photos and 35mm slides are also ont his last file. There was a Press 'D' Notice issued at the time.
Content from External Source

deirdre note: the photo cuts off the page so there is more text we cannot see
 
Last edited:
a quick google of the doc number, i see teh black vault was doing FOIA requests... that might be an avenue someone might want to explor further as i dont feel like digging myself.
Article:
. You will notice that the Policy file that was the subject of my previous FOI request, DI/55/108/15/Pt 4 contained enclosures dating from 1971 onwards. This suggests that Part 3 in the sequence - covering dates 1968-1971 - is ’missing’. Does DIS hold this file? b) With regards to the UFO Policy file covering the period 1996-2000 (your reference D 1/DI55/1 08/15 Pt 5) could you specify how many pages and how many enclosures are held within this file.
 
Todd Feinman said:
That reputedly real picture reminds me of an encounter a person posted at Historum years ago, that I collected. Fwiw:

"I had just gotten off from work as a telemarketer and I was in a Miami Suburb waiting for the bus at approx 9 pm. There was a slight drizzle and a fog at about 100 feet elevation. The street where I was waiting for the bus was practically deserted and the traffic was very scarce. I lived at the Gibson Hotel at that time which is located in downtown Miami. I was looking in that direction when I saw the white round light approaching silently at approx 3mph. I recognized it as the same light I had seen several nights before late at night from my hotel window but was traveling at a much higher elevation from the suburbs towards downtown Miami. It had the same strange characteristic of suddenly shaking horizontally (ha! forgot about that part (TF)). It was also entirely silent which ruled out a helicopter or plane.

I had assumed that the light itself was the entire craft but as it turned out the light was merely attached to its side. I only realized this as the backward reflection from it dimly illuminated the rest of its form which appeared to be that of two pyramids attached at their bases. I would say its distance from me when I noticed this was perhaps one hundred feet. It was enormous and dwarfed the house over which it was passing. I assumed it was going to continue on its way when it suddenly stopped.

Then it suddenly doused its white frontal light and shifted it to focus on me for approx three seconds. Then it used a red and then a green lights and did the same. These lights were the most intense lights I have ever seen in terms of purity. Not a flicker. They were not blinding either.

What bothered me most was that the backward reflections from these light revealed what appeared to have been a hull that seemed organic and not metallic. It had this rather brownish tinge. Also, it was effortlessly defying gravity without any sound of any kind.

Once it had focused those lights on me and I had stood stupidly there instead of running like I should have but didn't for some strange reason, it then doused its light and re-lit it at its rim toward my left. That was the direction it had been traveling before it stopped. It then made a slight right turn towards what I knew was the Miami Airport. I gazed at it as it went and fluctuated horizontally now and then as it had done on its approach. It was traveling just below the fog cover as it had before.

Moments later my bus arrived. Got home and noticed that there was time missing. I figured that maybe I had imagined the whole thing. In fact, I hoped I had because it left me with an uneasy feeling as if I had been abused ion some way. Unfortunately, the next morning the newspaper headline was announcing that a UFO had played havoc with Miami Airport traffic the night before. There went my peace of mind.

Have I attempted to find out what happened during that missing time? No I havent. Why? Because I really don't want to know since it isn't going to do me any good one way or the other. I just wish it never happened to be honest."

--"Radrook
Click to expand...
No offence, but I have no clue what this has to do with the post, it’s purely anecdotal and anybody could have wrote an encounter like that without any corroborating evidence, it kinda reads just like a story to me but there’s no way I could debunk or prove this.

And when it comes to missing time, there are, well, more likely explanations than aliensdidit.
 
ParanoidSkeptic2 said:
No offence, but I have no clue what this has to do with the post, it’s purely anecdotal and anybody could have wrote an encounter like that without any corroborating evidence, it kinda reads just like a story to me but there’s no way I could debunk or prove this.

And when it comes to missing time, there are, well, more likely explanations than aliensdidit.
Click to expand...
So, the object in the witness account I provided --anecdotal as it is, matches the Calvine UFO very well, --thus my association with it and the Calvine UFO (in the post).
1. Both look like objects composed of two pyramids attached at their bases --like a shallow octahedron
2. The witness I mentioned described a light moving around on the rim of the object, and there is an object on the rim of the Calvine UFO that breaks its symmetry.
@dierdre:
3. I have no way to verify the authenticity of the account I posted.
4. I'm just noting a similarity, not necessarily claiming they are the same object.

If you can't debunk it --maybe think about it instead. Also, just generally, when police arrive at the scene of a crime --they do indeed talk to witnesses about what happened. A picture or bit of metal is just that, without context.
 
Last edited:
Todd Feinman said:
A picture or bit of metal is just that, without context.
Click to expand...
But that's all we have really, one person can say it was aliens, another can say was a blimp, heck, one person could say it's Santa. What matter's is the evidence that supports the claim.

To quote Carl Sagan:

"What counts is not what sounds plausible, not what we would like to believe, not what one or two witnesses claim, but only what is supported by hard evidence rigorously and skeptically examined."
 
Hello all.

A response from the National Archives (below) was recently received by me in regard to the DEFE/24/1940 Calvine/Pitlochry UFO sighting file.

The Calvine witness's name is being witheld because of Section 40(2) of the FOI Act (2000) where:

...it would be unfair or at odds with the reason why it was collected, or where the subject had officially served notice that releasing it would cause them damage or distress.
Click to expand...

I don't know which of the first 2 of these is being used to justify the redactions, because all the names and addresses are being witheld (and I doubt they've all individually served notice to the National Archives).

Unfairness seems a particularly pernicious justification to me, because if it's the state's minions doing the judging, their decisions will always be fair in their eyes, even when they look grossly unfair in ours.

One cannot truly know how another person felt or feels, but it strikes me as extremely unlikely that an individual would take these allegedly amazing photos, voluntarily contact the MOD and a national newspaper about them, and not expect at some point to have his name become public knowledge. Moreover, a public interest argument would, to me, override an individual's ongoing desire for anonymity (assuming, of course, that the witness had served official notice to that end, which he may not even have done), but my opinion counts for nought, of course.

The 84 year closure, which seems arbitrary at first glance, is because the authorities assume any witness was 16 at the time of a record's creation, and they also assume the witness will live up to the age of 100 and thus need the protection of ongoing anonymity. (Which is yet more bureaucratic b*ll*cks, of course, but it makes them look impartial).

Anyway, I thought it might be of potential interest/use, so it's below. Given all this blather, I think an appeal is a waste of time. If the witness won't come forward himself or is deceased, and with the photos hidden/lost/destroyed by the witness, the MoD and/or the Daily Record, the truth is almost certainly not out there in this case.

EXPLANATORY ANNEX

Your request in full (our responses in italics)

I'm trying to research a file in the NA. It's DEFE/24/1940 and its online page is here: https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C11483085.

I believe the file was meant to be released in its entirety on 1/1/2021, that the Ministry of Defence requested sometime in 2020 that it be kept closed, and that the NA subsequently agreed to keep the file closed until 1/1/2076. A two-part redacted version (DEFE/1940/1 and DEFE/1940/2) was released in which the Section 40 personal information remains blacked out.

I would be grateful to know the following, please:

1.Was the file in question originally due for release on 1/1/2021 in an unredacted form, i.e. before the MOD's intervention?

DEFE 24/1940 did not previously have a record opening date of 1 Jan 2021. It was closed for 30 years, with a record opening date of 1 Jan 2022.

Closure periods provide a date at which either release would be appropriate or the case for release should be reconsidered, rather than indicating that a file will be opened on a specific date. This is in line with section 46 code of practice of the Freedom of Information Act 2000: https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/information-management/foi-section-46-code-of-practice.pdf.

2. Are there any publicly available records showing:
(a) when the MOD first contacted the NA about extending the closure period for this file,

There are no publicly available records concerning the closure period of this record. The application to extend the closure was received on 16 January 2020.

(b) the reasons the MOD gave for justifying the significant extension of the closure period,

The currently redacted information is exempt under s40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, which exempts from release the personal information of a ‘third party’ (someone other than the requester), if revealing it would breach the terms of Data Protection Legislation. Data Protection Legislation prevents personal information from release if it would be unfair or at odds with the reason why it was collected, or where the subject had officially served notice that releasing it would cause them damage or distress. Personal information must be processed lawfully, fairly and in a transparent manner as set out by Art. 5 of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

It is standard government practice to assume that an individual is still living if they would not yet have reached the age of 100. If the age of an adult data subject is not known, it is assumed that they were 16 at the time of the record’s creation. Please see the explanatory annex below for further information on this exemption.

(c) what closure period the MOD's staff requested,

84 years

(d) on what date the NA reached its decision to agree to a closure extension,
(e) whether any other individual or organisation was consulted by the NA following the MOD's closure extension request for this file, and
(f) what process the NA went through in responding/agreeing to the MOD's request?

The National Archives does not make decisions on closure periods, is not consulted in order to make that decision, and does not go through an agreement process with the transferring department.

The National Archives instead reviews departments’ applications for closure prior to these applications being presented to the Advisory Council on National Records and Archives (ACNRA). This particular application was received ahead of the ACNRA’s meeting on 11 May 2020, and seen and agreed to by ACNRA on that date.

This process is detailed in the section 46 code of practice of the Freedom of Information Act 2000: https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/information-management/foi-section-46-code-of-practice.pdf.
The Advisory Council on National Records and Archives has a role in considering the wider public interest in closure, and advising the Secretary of State on the closure of public records, both individual applications and wider policy.

Further details on the role and functions of the Advisory Council can be found here - Advisory Council Status, Structure, Role and Functions (nationalarchives.gov.uk)

The closure period, FOI exemption used and reasoning applied in respect of this file is in line with the closure of other documents containing correspondence and reports of UFO sightings.

3. Given that the general public, presumably, had no input into the MOD/NA discussion regarding the decision to lengthen the closure period on this file from 2021 to 2076, is it possible to challenge that decision via an FOI request, or must this be done via an appeal to the ICO?

Anyone can submit an FOI request for review of a closed document via the ‘Submit FOI request’ button on Discovery. During the FOI request process an assessment of the closed material is made and consultation undertaken with the originating department as to whether information can be disclosed or if it remains exempt from release.



Section 40(2): Personal Information where the applicant is not the data subject
The Data Protection Legislation prevents personal information from release if it would be unfair or at odds with the reason why it was collected, or where the subject had officially served notice that releasing it would cause them damage or distress.
In this case the exemption applies because the material contains the personal information of identifiable individuals who are assumed still living.
It is standard government practice to assume that an individual is still living if they would not yet have reached the age of 100. If the age of an adult data subject is not known, it is assumed that they were 16 at the time of the records creation.

Further guidance can be found at:
http://ico.org.uk/for_organisations...0-and-regulation-13-foia-and-eir-guidance.pdf
Click to expand...
 
By way of another update:

In this post about the 1990 Calvine incident (http://www.ecalpemos.org/2018/01/the-calvine-ufo-incident.html), the author mentions that there could have been several possible sources of the Harriers allegedly photographed beside the diamond-shaped craft, with one being: '4 Sqdn based in Gutersloh, Germany. [This squadron] was in the process of converting from Harrier GR3 to GR7 with some crew undergoing training at Dunsfold and some in Arizona.'

I noticed today on page 55 of the National Archive file DEFE-31-180-1, a Calvine-related document, that someone involved in the production of the line drawings of the craft wrote: 'Task already discussed with Ops 4 Sqn.'

It would seem we might have a winner.

Anyone wanting to know who the pilots were might now be able to narrow their enquiries...
 
In the "recreation" mock up made by someone at The Sun newspaper - as per an educated guess from David Clarke in a recent interview - I'm not sure if I agree with their interpretation of the orientation of the possible Harrier jet.

Question: Is the photographer seeing the bottom of the plane or the top?

If it's the top of the plane then to my eye the recreation makes a much more dramatic image as the jet seems massively outscaled by the object.

However...If it's the bottom of the jet then is it possible that the larger object (the UFO) is the underside of some kind of stealth aircraft closer to the camera at a similar banking angle?

(below recreation on the left, photocopy of a drawing of a projected negative... on the right).
CalvineJet.jpg

Side note: this reminds me of the Spinning Dancer illusion, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinning_dancer]

Both images are here: [https://www.the-sun.com/news/2886944/us-release-best-ever-ufo-photo/]

Another side note: I was playing around with the orientation of this render of an F-117 to see if a similar diamond shape can be made and this was the closest I got.

Screenshot 2021-09-06 at 00.35.25.png

https://sketchfab.com/3d-models/loc...ghter-bomber-afe112b126694827a9e019d930b63822
 
It's impossible to know unless/until the real photos emerge.

Harriers are 46-47 feet long. The declassified records state merely that the diamond-shaped UFO was 'large'.

I stand ready to be corrected, but I think that:

(a) F-117s can't hover, and
(b) the 80-100 foot sizing seems to come from Nick Pope. Here's but one example: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/12889...cant-ufo-sighting-they-left-us-shell-shocked/

Elsewhere, page 36 of file DEFE-24-1940-1_2 from 14th Sept 1990 says:

'The negatives have been considered by the relevant staffs who have established that the jet aircraft is a Harrier (and also identified a barely visible second aircraft, again probably a Harrier) but have reached no definite conclusion regarding the large object.'
Click to expand...
 
I agree with your points. My suggestion was not that it was an F-117 but that there is precedent of other iterations of Hopeless Diamond shaped aircraft so it doesn't seem implausible that somewhere someone will see a "diamond shaped UFO".

My point above is a narrow one about the reconstruction image in a mainstream tabloid, the questionable orientation of a jet is just a tiny detail of art-direction that keeps the story rolling.

Lastly since the original witnesses haven't come forward the second hand description of a "stationary" or "hovering" object leaving with a vertical ascent aren't really worth much consideration until this History Channel VFX dept shows us that it did indeed happen...
 
I noticed another post over at Reddit (link) about the case and a FOI response, and wanted to place it here too to keep things together. I am not sure if it has any added value though.

Full FOI response:
RequestIn October, The Scottish Sun reported that MoD files relating to the August 1990 Calvine UFO incident, which should have been released as per the “30 year rule”, were blocked for release by the Ministry of Defence until 2072.
https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/ne...-sighting-calvine-scotland-highlands-picture/
Q1: Did MoD transfer this dossier to The National Archive?Q2: Was it just the dossier, or were supplementary materials included? (eg. the 6 color photographs)Q3: Are these files marked as classified, or somehow FoIA exempt? If so, what is the specific reason/exemption given?Q4: Is it normal for files to be delayed 50+ years? Have you, the person replying to this request, ever seen this happen?Q5: Is The Scottish Sun’s claim that you are actively withholding these files accurate? If so, who gave you this right?
OutcomeInformation provided.
ResponseQ1: Did MoD transfer this dossier to The National Archive?We understand this query to relate to file DEFE 24/1940, a record which was transferred to us from the originating department, the Ministry of Defence.
Q2: Was it just the dossier, or were supplementary materials included? (eg. the 6 color photographs)As noted on our catalogue, the full contents of DEFE 24/1940 are closed until 01 January 2076. A redacted version of the file is open and available to download from our catalogue here. There are three folios within this file that relate to the incident in question (pages 35-37 of part 2). There are no photographs contained in the file. The file itself states that the original negatives were returned to the Scottish Daily Record.
Q3: Are these files marked as classified, or somehow FoIA exempt? If so, what is the specific reason/exemption given?The redactions you will see in the open version all cover personal information (names and addresses) of members of the public who wrote to the Ministry of Defence reporting UFO sightings and also the names of the Ministry of Defence staff who investigated these reports. These details are exempt from release under section 40 (2) (personal data) of the FOI Act. Further information on section 40 is provided in the explanatory annex below.
Q4: Is it normal for files to be delayed 50+ years? Have you, the person replying to this request, ever seen this happen?It is usual for material exempt under section 40(2) to be closed for the lifetime of the subject, which is assumed to be 100 years from subject’s date of birth. Closure dates therefore are dependant on the age of the individual whose details are given, and duration of the closure could well be over 50 years.
Q5: Is The Scottish Sun’s claim that you are actively withholding these files accurate? If so, who gave you this right?As explained above, the only closed information within this file is personal information exempt under s40(2) of the FOI Act. The remainder of the file is open and available to download.
EXPLANATORY ANNEXExemptions applied.
Section 40(2): Personal Information where the applicant is not the data subjectThe Data Protection Legislation prevents personal information from release if it would be unfair or at odds with the reason why it was collected, or where the subject had officially served notice that releasing it would cause them damage or distress.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Mick West
Claim: Original Calvine UFO Photo
27 28 29
Replies
1K
Views
97K
Scaramanga
Scaramanga
ManInBlack
Claim: Photos show the suspected UAP hovering above the Patagonian plains
Replies
37
Views
3K
Charlie Wiser
Charlie Wiser
ManInBlack
Claim: UFO photographed at Torbay Airshow
Replies
9
Views
1K
pony
pony
S
Can Someone help me figure out what these lights were in the sky over CO?
Replies
9
Views
866
Mendel
Mendel
Giddierone
Solved: MUFON case #124190: 'Mothership' UAP Crosses the North Pacific [Starlink Stack]
2
Replies
63
Views
9K
Gary C
G

Latest posts

Back
Top