Claim: Original Calvine UFO Photo

Duke

Active Member
Like the B2 Stealth Bomber, IIRC. In the early 90's there were reported accounts confusing it with a UFO in the highlands.
There was a segment on an episode of "60 Minutes" in the late 80s dealing with the resurgence of UFO sightings. One of the witnesses was a very talented commercial artist who did an impressive rendering of a craft she reported having seen. The next morning early an "all hands" meeting was called to discuss that painting. She had an amazing eye for detail. ;)
 
Last edited:
That hovers, silently, before shooting up into the sky? That's the accompanying story that goes with the photo and it seems to be the one Clark is pushing. I've never been in the military or delt with black ops type stuff. I'm a bit of a dullard, but that sounds an awful lot like an anti-gravity craft, right?

It's supposedly 60-100' long and maintains itself in the air with no visible means of lift, like wings or rotors. It has no visible means of thrust, like a rocket engine. That leaves hot air/hydrogen/helium balloon thing of some kind, or anti-gravity, unless I'm missing something. And if the US had harnessed anti-gravity back in the '80s, why are we farting around with Space X 40 years later? I'm not getting it.

Yea right on, I had all that in mind when wondering whether the UFO's actual movements were all distorted, exaggerated in some way or even completely made up.
 
D

Deleted member 17800

Guest
Thanks to those few who understand what I was writing of.
Good work Mr. West do so keep up the good work.

Sadly it has transpired this ' forum' isn't for me.
My reasonings are evident to those that understood what I was writing with restorative ideas and profession.
I am not one to argue for arguments sake nor am I one to argue the very substance of facts of ' facts' we are supposedly discussing and so unfortunately this shall be my last post.
I have taken the liberty of removing my information / avatar etc.

I ask please that a moderator can please remove my account at Metabunk.

Thank you .
Chelle H. H.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
Sadly it has transpired this ' forum' isn't for me.
My reasonings are evident to those that understood what I was writing with restorative ideas and profession.
I am not one to argue for arguments sake nor am I one to argue the very substance of facts of ' facts' we are supposedly discussing and so unfortunately this shall be my last post.
I have taken the liberty of removing my information / avatar etc

well just don't take it personally. It's just what skeptics do. if i had a dime for everytime someone argued with me for argument sake, or over the facts of facts we are supposed to be discussing, i could build my own stealth anti-gravity aircraft! :)

thanks for all the info you provided though!
 

Duke

Active Member
Thanks to those few who understand what I was writing of.
Good work Mr. West do so keep up the good work.

Sadly it has transpired this ' forum' isn't for me.
My reasonings are evident to those that understood what I was writing with restorative ideas and profession.
I am not one to argue for arguments sake nor am I one to argue the very substance of facts of ' facts' we are supposedly discussing and so unfortunately this shall be my last post.
I have taken the liberty of removing my information / avatar etc.

I ask please that a moderator can please remove my account at Metabunk.

Thank you .
Chelle H. H.
Sorry to see you go, I both enjoyed and learned from you posts. I wish you'd reconsider, but understand your position.
 

Daves!

Active Member
If Calvine was a real (vice spoof/hoax) incident, my gut feel is the craft photographed was an unmanned, classified ISR US vehicle either involved in dissimilar training/testing with the Brits, and/or being forward deployed to observe the build up of Iraqi forces in their run up to their invasion of Kuwait. I think it's likely the vehicle experienced technical difficulties and an in-flight emergency was declared. There being no crew aboard the vehicle, the a/c seen in the photo would have been sent to CAP the emergency, visually inspect the vehicle, and report back on the effect of corrective actions being undertaken. Can't prove it, but call it an educated guess.

Im more and more convinced that it wasn't a hoax or something like that. The Q&A of Team Disclosure last night gave me alot answers and they went on to give very deep details to why populair theory's saying it was a hoax were incorrect. If it was fake and a hoax, i think they would not be so open and frank, giving good insights about almost every small details in and around the picture. They seriously took alot of effort to find any traces of fakery.
They first thought too to be a hoax and changed later their minds. Went to the spot, trying to contact so many different people.

Im not quickly convinced that it would be some exotical alien ship but rather a Black Budget man made vehicle that had some technical problems.

The only UFO lore story that has the same similarities is the Cash-Landrum incident in 1980 in the US.
Where a diamond shaped UFO was escorted by some 20 helicopters towards an nearby airbase.
i read somewhere that it was also a man made object some pilots / personel talked about it.
 
Last edited:

john.phil

Member
Thanks to those few who understand what I was writing of.
Good work Mr. West do so keep up the good work.

Sadly it has transpired this ' forum' isn't for me.
My reasonings are evident to those that understood what I was writing with restorative ideas and profession.
I am not one to argue for arguments sake nor am I one to argue the very substance of facts of ' facts' we are supposedly discussing and so unfortunately this shall be my last post.
I have taken the liberty of removing my information / avatar etc.

I ask please that a moderator can please remove my account at Metabunk.

Thank you .
Chelle H. H.
I found your colorized version very useful for determining the illumination direction, and from it, it's possible to say there's no way the photographer was facing South-East at 21:00, as claimed and hypothesized by dr. David Clarke.
 
The only UFO lore story that has the same similarities is the Cash-Landrum incident in 1980 in the US.
Where a diamond shaped UFO was escorted by some 20 helicopters towards an nearby airbase.
i read somewhere that it was also a man made object some pilots / personel talked about it.

Interesting, I would expect then there wasn't reported accounts of that UFO hovering for a long time/shooting up into the sky at high speed... unless I'm definitely not aware these features were already a reality achieved by advanced technologies from those black budget programs back then?
 
Last edited:

NorCal Dave

Senior Member.
From AW&ST in the Dec 24 1990 issue. Size and shape are about right right, no wings or rotors shown or mentioned. Anti-gravity? To my knowledge that technology doesn't exist, except in science fiction.
Yeah, but the SR71 is 107' long, so if someone is guessing about its replacement, then 110' sounds reasonable.

Specifications (SR-71A)[edit]
Content from External Source



Orthographically projected diagram of the SR-71A Blackbird

Orthographically projected diagram of the SR-71B trainer model

SR-71 epoxy asbestos composite areas
Data from Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird[176]

General characteristics

  • Crew: 2; Pilot and reconnaissance systems officer (RSO)
  • Length: 107 ft 5 in (32.74 m)
  • Wingspan: 55 ft 7 in (16.94 m)
Content from External Source

Some other important things from the article:

1661286831611.png

Almost all of the things I can find on the Aurora, indicate a high-flying hypersonic aircraft. It still used engines of some sort to create thrust to move it forward and create lift.

Here is a story from a former pilot I found while trying to see how slow an SR71 could fly, as it's the closest thing we know of to our hypothetical Aurora (I've edited a lot out):

As we scooted across Denmark in three minutes, we learned that a small RAF base in the English countryside had requested an SR-71 fly-past.

Walter told me we were close and that I should be able to see the field, but I saw nothing. Nothing but trees as far as I could see in the haze. We got a little lower, and I pulled the throttles back from 325 knots we were at. With the gear up, anything under 275 was just uncomfortable.

The longer we continued to peer out the window and circle, the slower we got. With our power back, the awaiting cadets heard nothing.

As I noticed the airspeed indicator slide below 160 knots, my heart stopped and my adrenalin-filled left hand pushed two throttles full forward. At this point we weren't really flying, but were falling in a slight bank.

Finally, Walter looked at me and said, "One hundred fifty-six knots. What did you see?" Trying to find my voice, I stammered, "One hundred fifty-two."
Content from External Source
http://blog.cosmo.org/2011/08/how-slow-can-sr-71-fly.html

So, if true, this guy got an SR71 down to around 155 knots. That's still not hovering, although he said it may have been very quite.

I don't know how to reconcile the photo with the story of the photo. If it's some super-secret US craft that had problems and got low enough to be seen and photographed, then either if can float in the air before rising up in a vertical takeoff, or the story behind the photo is not accurate.

If the story is not accurate, then where does that leave the photo.

And if the story is accurate, then what technology is at work, that is still completely secret 30+ years later?
 

Duke

Active Member
Yeah, but the SR71 is 107' long, so if someone is guessing about its replacement, then 110' sounds reasonable.

Specifications (SR-71A)[edit]
Content from External Source



Orthographically projected diagram of the SR-71A Blackbird

Orthographically projected diagram of the SR-71B trainer model

SR-71 epoxy asbestos composite areas
Data from Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird[176]

General characteristics

  • Crew: 2; Pilot and reconnaissance systems officer (RSO)
  • Length: 107 ft 5 in (32.74 m)
  • Wingspan: 55 ft 7 in (16.94 m)
Content from External Source

Some other important things from the article:

1661286831611.png

Almost all of the things I can find on the Aurora, indicate a high-flying hypersonic aircraft. It still used engines of some sort to create thrust to move it forward and create lift.

Here is a story from a former pilot I found while trying to see how slow an SR71 could fly, as it's the closest thing we know of to our hypothetical Aurora (I've edited a lot out):

As we scooted across Denmark in three minutes, we learned that a small RAF base in the English countryside had requested an SR-71 fly-past.

Walter told me we were close and that I should be able to see the field, but I saw nothing. Nothing but trees as far as I could see in the haze. We got a little lower, and I pulled the throttles back from 325 knots we were at. With the gear up, anything under 275 was just uncomfortable.

The longer we continued to peer out the window and circle, the slower we got. With our power back, the awaiting cadets heard nothing.

As I noticed the airspeed indicator slide below 160 knots, my heart stopped and my adrenalin-filled left hand pushed two throttles full forward. At this point we weren't really flying, but were falling in a slight bank.

Finally, Walter looked at me and said, "One hundred fifty-six knots. What did you see?" Trying to find my voice, I stammered, "One hundred fifty-two."
Content from External Source
http://blog.cosmo.org/2011/08/how-slow-can-sr-71-fly.html

So, if true, this guy got an SR71 down to around 155 knots. That's still not hovering, although he said it may have been very quite.

I don't know how to reconcile the photo with the story of the photo. If it's some super-secret US craft that had problems and got low enough to be seen and photographed, then either if can float in the air before rising up in a vertical takeoff, or the story behind the photo is not accurate.

If the story is not accurate, then where does that leave the photo.

And if the story is accurate, then what technology is at work, that is still completely secret 30+ years later?

Yeah, but the SR71 is 107' long, so if someone is guessing about its replacement, then 110' sounds reasonable.

Specifications (SR-71A)[edit]
Content from External Source



Orthographically projected diagram of the SR-71A Blackbird

Orthographically projected diagram of the SR-71B trainer model

SR-71 epoxy asbestos composite areas
Data from Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird[176]

General characteristics

  • Crew: 2; Pilot and reconnaissance systems officer (RSO)
  • Length: 107 ft 5 in (32.74 m)
  • Wingspan: 55 ft 7 in (16.94 m)
Content from External Source

Some other important things from the article:

1661286831611.png

Almost all of the things I can find on the Aurora, indicate a high-flying hypersonic aircraft. It still used engines of some sort to create thrust to move it forward and create lift.

Here is a story from a former pilot I found while trying to see how slow an SR71 could fly, as it's the closest thing we know of to our hypothetical Aurora (I've edited a lot out):

As we scooted across Denmark in three minutes, we learned that a small RAF base in the English countryside had requested an SR-71 fly-past.

Walter told me we were close and that I should be able to see the field, but I saw nothing. Nothing but trees as far as I could see in the haze. We got a little lower, and I pulled the throttles back from 325 knots we were at. With the gear up, anything under 275 was just uncomfortable.

The longer we continued to peer out the window and circle, the slower we got. With our power back, the awaiting cadets heard nothing.

As I noticed the airspeed indicator slide below 160 knots, my heart stopped and my adrenalin-filled left hand pushed two throttles full forward. At this point we weren't really flying, but were falling in a slight bank.

Finally, Walter looked at me and said, "One hundred fifty-six knots. What did you see?" Trying to find my voice, I stammered, "One hundred fifty-two."
Content from External Source
http://blog.cosmo.org/2011/08/how-slow-can-sr-71-fly.html

So, if true, this guy got an SR71 down to around 155 knots. That's still not hovering, although he said it may have been very quite.

I don't know how to reconcile the photo with the story of the photo. If it's some super-secret US craft that had problems and got low enough to be seen and photographed, then either if can float in the air before rising up in a vertical takeoff, or the story behind the photo is not accurate.

If the story is not accurate, then where does that leave the photo.

And if the story is accurate, then what technology is at work, that is still completely secret 30+ years later?
There was/is no Aurora aircraft. "Aurora" was a code word placeholder used for DoD budgetary purposes for the classified B-2 program. I have no first hand knowledge of the vehicle described in the AW&ST article I posted, I never worked unmanned programs. There are US aircraft from the same time period as the Calvine photo that are still classified.
 

Charlie Wiser

Active Member
If this thing is a large floatable blimp able to hover, we can be pretty certain the eyewitness account is inaccurate or untruthful since blimps don't shoot into the air at incredible speed and vanish. Why insert that into the story when the blimp and their photos are already amazing enough? - unless the hovering blimp itself is also fabricated.

If this thing is a metal aircraft that's hovering without propulsion (even if we ignore the shooting up part), that technology is decades or centuries away from anything we have today (let alone 1990) - we don't even have feasible precursors that you'd expect scientists all over the world to be developing over the decades. So that would mean it's either ET or reverse-engineered from an ET craft in total secret with no leaks into private industry for commercial applications.

Im more and more convinced that it wasn't a hoax or something like that. The Q&A of Team Disclosure last night gave me alot answers and they went on to give very deep details to why populair theory's saying it was a hoax were incorrect. If it was fake and a hoax, i think they would not be so open and frank, giving good insights about almost every small details in and around the picture. They seriously took alot of effort to find any traces of fakery.
They first thought too to be a hoax and changed later their minds. Went to the spot, trying to contact so many different people.

Clarke did change his mind about it being a hoax, but failed to explain why all his reasons for thinking it was a hoax last year no longer apply. Visiting a proposed site and knocking on doors is not evidence that contradicts his previous reasoning. And every time the reflection hypothesis is mentioned, it's a strawman version in order to eliminate it (e.g. "there's no horizon, therefore it's not a reflection"). As for it being a small close model, I haven't seen any of them tackle that idea in any depth. Stu Little was told it was a UFO, and he was interested in UFOs, so he was well primed to interpret the thing in the negatives as a large distant object.

And nobody hyping this as a real craft seems to want to talk about the wee bobble on the end...
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
Why insert that into the story when the blimp and their photos are already amazing enough? - unless the hovering blimp itself is also fabricated.
i would if the Pentagon started questioning me at age 18. Heck, i might do it at my age now. :)
I would want the Pentagon to know that I, at least, am 100% certain that it is an extraterrestrial UFO and not a secret military death machine i'm not supposed to know about. I'm not going to be thinking about secret military death machines, I'm not going to be telling my friends about secret military death machines.
 

Rory

Closed Account
Clarke did change his mind about it being a hoax, but failed to explain why all his reasons for thinking it was a hoax last year no longer apply.

He has talked of some of those reasons saying that there are a number of them not connected with the photo itself, and that he's also open to it being a hoax (most likely model or cutout close to the camera) and so may change his mind again - which is of course the correct position.

every time the reflection hypothesis is mentioned, it's a strawman version in order to eliminate it (e.g. "there's no horizon, therefore it's not a reflection").

I don't think this is true. "Every time"? Really? And how do you know what people are discussing when you're not around to hear them?

Sometimes, maybe. Some people, on occasion, perhaps. But none of that is important to our discussion here.

As for it being a small close model, I haven't seen any of them tackle that idea in any depth.

They have no obligation to either tackle it or show you what they're doing - though they may end up doing both.

And nobody hyping this as a real craft seems to want to talk about the wee bobble on the end.

If there are people hyping it as a real craft it's not our problem. If they're not talking about the bobble on the end it's nothing to do with us.

Our thing here is to debunk what can be debunked, plain and simple, and to leave the evidence for people to find if they so choose.

Let's just stick to the evidence at hand. Too much speculation on the backstory and what other people are thinking and doing is irrelevant to the task of trying to explain what this photo is - as well as somewhat out of line with the posting guidelines.
 

jackfrostvc

Senior Member
I'm torn on what it could be. But my top 4 in order

1) Models hanging from above.
2) Reflection
3) Double exposure of some kind
4) Something painted or stuck on a glass pain near to the camera
 
Whether this is relevant to anything I cannot say. However, a second set of Calvine-like prints has just turned up, from the collection of the late Wendlle Stevens. The photographer (hoaxer) of the new set of three photos, dated 1994, is presently unknown. However, we can connect Stevens directly with Amaury Silva Toro, the author of the Calvine-like 1988 hoax photos from Puerto Rico.

https://anomalien.com/photos-depict...er-were-released-from-wendell-stevens-locker/

There seems to be a certain 'archetype' among UFO photos, that might be described as follows:

1. Near the center of the photo is a dark UFO, either disc-shaped or diamond-shaped.

2. A military jet is flying around, but not directly by the UFO.

3. There are tall tree branches near the top of the frame.

4. Something is in the foreground, to help establish the scale of the photo.

WHY this should be is anybody's guess. My guess is: an artist has a vision!

From left to right: 1998 Puerto Rico hoax; 1990 Calvine photo; 1994 unknown, from Stevens.
 

Attachments

  • PuertoRicoHoax1.jpg
    PuertoRicoHoax1.jpg
    55.8 KB · Views: 37
  • scottish_ufo_scan_print_front_A4.jpg
    scottish_ufo_scan_print_front_A4.jpg
    221.2 KB · Views: 35
  • Stevens1.jpg
    Stevens1.jpg
    74.1 KB · Views: 41

Daves!

Active Member
For those into photography and lighting and making hoaxes... If this star model was suspended from either vertical or horizonal strings, would photographing it at 9PM and/or in mist reduce the chance the strings would show? (either because of lower light, or lack of sun glinting off the string)
The Team Disclosure went to the Calvine area and said it was very windy over there.
So im wondering if its an outside taken picture and there is wind how can you make a picture of the star model to appear non moving and almost perfect aligned ?

im curious how to achieve that.
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
The Team Disclosure went to the Calvine area and said it was very windy over there.
So im wondering if its an outside taken picture and there is wind how can you make a picture of the star model to appear non moving and almost perfect aligned ?

im curious how to achieve that.
It is not windy all the time.
It wasn't taken there

If its a hoax, all the details of the story attached to the photo are in question.
 

Itsme

Active Member
For a super aircraft developed more than thirty years ago and still kept in a secret hangar somewhere to this day, I always wonder: where do they get their spare parts?...
 

Ann K

Senior Member.
Clarke did change his mind about it being a hoax, but failed to explain why all his reasons for thinking it was a hoax last year no longer apply. Visiting a proposed site and knocking on doors is not evidence that contradicts his previous reasoning. And every time the reflection hypothesis is mentioned, it's a strawman version in order to eliminate it (e.g. "there's no horizon, therefore it's not a reflection"). As for it being a small close model, I haven't seen any of them tackle that idea in any depth. Stu Little was told it was a UFO, and he was interested in UFOs, so he was well primed to interpret the thing in the negatives as a large distant object.

And nobody hyping this as a real craft seems to want to talk about the wee bobble on the end...
Please excuse the speculation, but this fits with all the facts we know. To me (well, to Occam and me) the pragmatic (and utterly prosaic) explanation is the simplest. They were out while unidentified planes were zipping up and down the loch and took several unmanipulated photos that had a small island and reflections of the planes. Later those two young guys looked and said, with a laugh, "a UFO!" and sent it to the papers. In other words, the photos were not the hoax; the story was. I doubt either of them took it seriously. If that's the case, no amount of additional information from the photo is going to get to the facts.
 

Duke

Active Member
For a super aircraft developed more than thirty years ago and still kept in a secret hangar somewhere to this day, I always wonder: where do they get their spare parts?...
As US military a/c go, one built 30-35 years ago would be relatively young. The last KC-135 was built in 1957, the last B-52 was built in 1962, the last T-38 was built in 1972. Those three a/c types will remain in service for years to come. We're still flying F-15s and F-16s built before 1990. Even the best of our best, the first operational B-2s and F-22s were built in the late 80s/early 90s.

There are around 300 C-47s/DC-3s still flying today, and the last one was produced during WWII.
 
Last edited:

deirdre

Senior Member.
If there are people hyping it as a real craft it's not our problem. If they're not talking about the bobble on the end it's nothing to do with us.

Our thing here is to debunk what can be debunked, plain and simple, and to leave the evidence for people to find if they so choose.

Let's just stick to the evidence at hand. Too much speculation on the backstory and what other people are thinking and doing is irrelevant to the task of trying to explain what this photo is - as well as somewhat out of line with the posting guidelines.
in fairness, MB discusses what 911 Truth, Elizondo, that Tom guy from the backstreet boys, Republicans etc are or are not promoting or acknowledging. I see Clarke as the Elizondo of this Calvine thing. (Not saying he is as untrustworthy as Elizondo might be, just saying he has chosen to be in the same basic role)
 

Itsme

Active Member
Please excuse the speculation, but this fits with all the facts we know. To me (well, to Occam and me) the pragmatic (and utterly prosaic) explanation is the simplest. They were out while unidentified planes were zipping up and down the loch and took several unmanipulated photos that had a small island and reflections of the planes. Later those two young guys looked and said, with a laugh, "a UFO!" and sent it to the papers. In other words, the photos were not the hoax; the story was. I doubt either of them took it seriously. If that's the case, no amount of additional information from the photo is going to get to the facts.
Not with all the facts. If this were a random ufo photograph/story from the internet then yes. But why were these pictures and the details of their origin first kept secret by the MOD for 30 years and now for another 50 years? Apparently it's no laughing matter to them. It is even called sensitive in one of their internal memos. The question is, why?
(Of course the obvious funny comment is "they fell for it, too, and are too ashamed to admit it, so now they wait until everyone who is going to be embarrassed is no longer here" )
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
Not with all the facts. If this were a random ufo photograph/story from the internet then yes. But why were these pictures and the details of their origin first kept secret by the MOD for 30 years and now for another 50 years? Apparently it's no laughing matter to them. It is even called sensitive in one of their internal memos. The question is, why?
(Of course the obvious funny comment is "they fell for it, too, and are too ashamed to admit it, so now they wait until everyone who is going to be embarrassed is no longer here" )
The photos themselves are not and were not kept secret, the names of the witnesses that were added to the gov records as part of the case were kept secret as per normal procedure.
 

Itsme

Active Member
The photos themselves are not and were not kept secret, the names of the witnesses that were added to the gov records as part of the case were kept secret as per normal procedure.
The photos were never released by the MOD. If they were disposed because this was a simple hoax/misidentification, why not dispose the rest of the file as well?
According to Dave Clarke (source)
"It’s a picture the MoD and The National Archives have tried their utmost to keep hidden. While the information would normally have been released after 30 years, the Ministry has not released the original photo and wants the names of the witnesses sealed for a further 54 years — until 2076 — because of ‘privacy concerns’."
"The MoD must explain to the public why, if there are no such things as UFOs, how they can justify keeping their identities secret for a further 54 years. And it also needs to explain what happened to the negatives and their file on the case — otherwise they are simply adding further grist to the mill of the conspiracy theorists who believe the authorities are hiding ‘the truth’ about visits to Earth by aliens. The pictures surely cannot be said to damage state interests."
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
If they were disposed because this was a simple hoax/misidentification, why not dispose the rest of the file as well?
they werent disposed of. they were returned to the Daily Mail Record.
and the government doesnt just throw away files, I'm confused why you are even suggesting that. The only thing the MOD had that wasnt released were the name of the photographer.

from your own source
Article:
Although the sparse MoD papers on the Calvine sighting were declassified, the names of the photographer (and Craig Lindsay) were removed from the file under Data Protection laws.


Article:
[page 12]Our records show that the original negatives were returned to The Scottish Daily Record.

....[page 28]
2. The photographs, which were received on 10 Sept, are alleged to have been taken near the A9 road at Clavine, north of Pitlochrie on the evening of 4 August. They show a large stationary, diamond-shaped object past which, it appears, a small jet aircraft is flying. 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. It has also been confirmed that there is no record of Harriers operating in the area at the time at which the photographs are alleged to have been taken. The negatives have now been returned to the Scottish Daily Record.
 
Last edited:

JMartJr

Senior Member
"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. It has also been confirmed that there is no record of Harriers operating in the area at the time at which the photographs are alleged to have been taken."

I'd missed that bit. That reads like a non-confrontational government way of saying "We identified something in the story that tells us it was not true and so lost interest. Here are your negatives back." If THAT was communicated to Scottish Daily Record, it is unsurprising that they never ran the story.
 

Duke

Active Member
The photos themselves are not and were not kept secret, the names of the witnesses that were added to the gov records as part of the case were kept secret as per normal procedure.
Nothing relative to the Calvine incident was classified as far as I can tell. Clearly Pope would not have written about Calvine in a book while still employed by the MoD if the incident was classified, or even designated FOUO. Further, the names of the photographers/witnesses were withheld not for any national security reasons, but rather due to public law privacy legislation.

While the photos/negatives were apparently returned to the newspaper, even if the MoD had made copies (which they almost certainly did) they couldn't release them because they didn't own the intellectual property rights to them. If the paper paid the photographers for the photos, the paper owned the rights. If not, the rights belonged to whoever took the photos.

It would be interesting to know why the paper didn't run the photos? May have been as simple as the paper not being willing to pay the photographer's price to publish them. I've not seen anyone claim, or even infer, HMG asked the paper not to print them.
 
Last edited:

deirdre

Senior Member.
even if the MoD had made copies (which they also certainly did) they couldn't release them because they didn't own the intellectual property rights to them.
My government releases photos that are in any declassified files. i would think they fall under our Fair Use law, which you can use a photo for analytical purposes. Of course all the examples ive seen were given BY the photographer, not by some third party.

May have been as simple as the paper not being willing to pay the photographer's price to publish them. I've not seen anyone claim, or even infer, HMG asked the paper not to print them.
there was allegedly a "d notice" ..i'm tagging @Rory because i might have the name wrong.
 

DavidB66

Senior Member
the government doesn't just throw away files
The UK government (and probably others) throws away (or shreds, incinerates, etc) a lot of files, simply to save space. There is usually a requirement that after a specified period every file is reviewed by a mid-ranking official and then destroyed unless there is some reason of policy or precedent to retain it. (I say 'usually' because there may be categories of records, e.g. of legal cases, where the default assumption is to retain the document indefinitely. Policies and time limits may vary in different departments.) After a longer period (traditionally 30 years in the UK) most surviving papers are dumped in the National Archives and the government department concerned washes its hands of them.

It might be thought unlikely that papers or photographs concerning such an important case as Calvine would just be junked, but this assumes that their importance is recognised by the officials responsible for decisions on retention or disposal. All the evidence suggests that the UK MoD has (or had) little interest in 'UFOs' (see David Clarke's book 'The UFO Files', location 2399 in the Kindle version), and the survival of records is very patchy.

The above is concerned only with paper records. In the digital age matters may well be worse. Try finding one of your own computer files more than 5 years old!
 

Ann K

Senior Member.
Not with all the facts. If this were a random ufo photograph/story from the internet then yes. But why were these pictures and the details of their origin first kept secret by the MOD for 30 years and now for another 50 years? Apparently it's no laughing matter to them. It is even called sensitive in one of their internal memos. The question is, why?
(Of course the obvious funny comment is "they fell for it, too, and are too ashamed to admit it, so now they wait until everyone who is going to be embarrassed is no longer here" )
You call it "secret". I call it "shelved" for lack of interest. nevertheless, the question of what the MoD thought of it is entirely separate from the question of what the boys said and did.
 

Duke

Active Member
The UK government (and probably others) throws away (or shreds, incinerates, etc) a lot of files, simply to save space. There is usually a requirement that after a specified period every file is reviewed by a mid-ranking official and then destroyed unless there is some reason of policy or precedent to retain it. (I say 'usually' because there may be categories of records, e.g. of legal cases, where the default assumption is to retain the document indefinitely. Policies and time limits may vary in different departments.) After a longer period (traditionally 30 years in the UK) most surviving papers are dumped in the National Archives and the government department concerned washes its hands of them.

It might be thought unlikely that papers or photographs concerning such an important case as Calvine would just be junked, but this assumes that their importance is recognised by the officials responsible for decisions on retention or disposal. All the evidence suggests that the UK MoD has (or had) little interest in 'UFOs' (see David Clarke's book 'The UFO Files', location 2399 in the Kindle version), and the survival of records is very patchy.

The above is concerned only with paper records. In the digital age matters may well be worse. Try finding one of your own computer files more than 5 years old!
Yep.

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/claim-original-calvine-ufo-photo.12571/post-276927
 

Rory

Closed Account
the government doesnt just throw away files

They definitely do. I believe I've already posted info to that effect but, if not, I'm sure I could find it.

I see Clarke as the Elizondo of this Calvine thing. (Not saying he is as untrustworthy as Elizondo might be, just saying he has chosen to be in the same basic role)

I don't know what Elizondo does but if he's the prime investigator in a particular case visiting places, talking to people, asking for records and sharing (most of) what he's learned then, yes, maybe that's about right.

My government releases photos that are in any declassified files.

How do they release them?

there was allegedly a "d notice" ..i'm tagging @Rory because i might have the name wrong.

D-notice is right (wikipedia article).

why were these pictures and the details of their origin first kept secret by the MOD for 30 years and now for another 50 years?

As above. I haven't seen any evidence that they were kept secret and, indeed, everything points to the contrary.
 
Last edited:
Top