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.
Sorry to see you go, I both enjoyed and learned from you posts. I wish you'd reconsider, but understand your position.
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.
Yeah, but the SR71 is 107' long, so if someone is guessing about its replacement, then 110' sounds reasonable.
External Quote:
External Quote:
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)
http://blog.cosmo.org/2011/08/how-slow-can-sr-71-fly.htmlExternal Quote:
A technology that DIDN'T work, or one that had other drawbacks. Not every concept proves to be a success.
Yeah, but the SR71 is 107' long, so if someone is guessing about its replacement, then 110' sounds reasonable.
External Quote:External Quote:
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)
Some other important things from the article:
View attachment 54075
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):
http://blog.cosmo.org/2011/08/how-slow-can-sr-71-fly.htmlExternal Quote:
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.Yeah, but the SR71 is 107' long, so if someone is guessing about its replacement, then 110' sounds reasonable.
External Quote:External Quote:
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)
Some other important things from the article:
View attachment 54075
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):
http://blog.cosmo.org/2011/08/how-slow-can-sr-71-fly.htmlExternal Quote:
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?
An interesting proposal to go along with a model Harrier - star decoration on a fishing line:
Which when viewed from the side looks like this:
Source: https://caravaca.blogspot.com/?fbclid=IwAR1TXA_GBh1GjvFhx8Bol2ZFVNyaxzBIqQurs4gDpJojeTm417y1J_hC0B4
popped up in my sidebar... lol
i would if the Pentagon started questioning me at age 18. Heck, i might do it at my age now.
The Team Disclosure went to the Calvine area and said it was very windy over there.
It is not windy all the time.
They're recreations from memory of some of the other six frames that were shot, by someone who viewed the negatives at the time.
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.
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.
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)
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?
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?
they werent disposed of. they were returned to the Daily
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.
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.
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.
there was allegedly a "d notice" ..i'm tagging @Rory because i might have the name wrong.
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.
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.
