Claim: Original Calvine UFO Photo
- Thread starter Mick West
- Start date
Rory
Closed Account
Just musing here, don't put too much weight on it..
No humor [sic] allowed. Landru will have us all put into detention.
deirdre
Senior Member.
well if people dont get creative with their brainstorming ideas, then there would be nothing for people to say.
They release a "famous" photo and the internet is just supposed to say "ah. well that sucks. no idea what that is."
that's not even remotely fun.I hope that a debunk-within-a-debunk is permissible - it's Calvine-specific and I didn't think this warranted its own thread.
As we know Dr Clarke claims that the object in the photograph is some sort of 'black' aircraft. This hypothesis is espoused in the 'Disclosure Team' Q&A video here (I've linked to the exact timestamp) and backed up by Clarke's researcher Matthew Illsley on Twitter here. Clarke and Illsley are referencing 'Working Paper No. 9' from the MoD's 2000 'Condign' report ('UAP in the UK Air Defence Region') on UAPs. Clarke claims that "there is a section on black project aircraft that has a picture of the um the blackbird…the SR-71 and it says very specifically there are two other experimental US black project programmes which may have visited the uk and if people had seen them because they're so unfamiliar in shape they would have reported them as a UFO, and there's two images that have been removed from the Condign report that show what [sic] these two top secret projects. So anyone that says "oh no, no there wasn't anything, we all, we know what they look like" those have been removed on Section 27 of the Freedom of Information act which covers international relations. They are american secret projects that we are not allowed to see what they look like - 32 years later we're still not any of the wiser what these things are."
The first, lesser criticism that I have is that redacting information from a no-longer classified 'SECRET' document due to a perceived risk of damage to international relations does not, by any means, imply that the aircraft in question are still "secret" [Edit for clarity]. As others have commented before, there are also issues with the capability of the claimed aircraft as depicted in the prints and as claimed by supposed witnesses, insofar as no such technology is known to exist today, never mind in 1990. Anyway, on to my main point…
Neither Clarke nor Illsley seems to have read past page 9-8 (the page with the second redacted photograph) or, if they have, they've failed to spot that not two but three candidates for the aircraft depicted and discussed in the redacted text appear in the paper itself as line drawings - see pages 9-9 and 9-10 (Volume 2, Part G). These are the F-22 Raptor (Figure 6), the F-117 Nighthawk (aka the 'Stealth Fighter') (Figure 7) and the B2 Spirit ('Stealth Bomber'). These line drawings are credited to Janes, the well-known defence intelligence publisher. Being 'open source' intelligence they would pose no concerns over 'international relations' and so are left intact. The F-22 isn't mentioned in the unredacted text. Nor is any 'Figure 6' referenced in said text. Thus at least some of the redacted text must cover this type. The fact that the caption to Figure 6 specifies the 'production configuration' of the type might also imply that Figure 5 was a photograph of the YF-22A prototype, although of course I can't be as sure about that.
Although the F-117 and B2 are mentioned at paragraph 4, these too lack equivalent description/discussion text to that provided for the SR-71. I think it's quite likely that these types did not also originally have some text devoted to them, now redacted. Why redact information on and photos of these types? Unlike the Janes illustrations, actual photographs of the F-22, F-117 and B2 would not necessarily be open source and releasing them to the public might in theory be a concern viz Section 27. Perhaps the FOI officer applied to DD to clear these photos and related text and was denied or even ignored? Who knows, but for me it's far more likely that the redacted photos and info pertained to two or more of these three now well-known types than two designs that have somehow, for some reason, remained classified to this day.
As we know Dr Clarke claims that the object in the photograph is some sort of 'black' aircraft. This hypothesis is espoused in the 'Disclosure Team' Q&A video here (I've linked to the exact timestamp) and backed up by Clarke's researcher Matthew Illsley on Twitter here. Clarke and Illsley are referencing 'Working Paper No. 9' from the MoD's 2000 'Condign' report ('UAP in the UK Air Defence Region') on UAPs. Clarke claims that "there is a section on black project aircraft that has a picture of the um the blackbird…the SR-71 and it says very specifically there are two other experimental US black project programmes which may have visited the uk and if people had seen them because they're so unfamiliar in shape they would have reported them as a UFO, and there's two images that have been removed from the Condign report that show what [sic] these two top secret projects. So anyone that says "oh no, no there wasn't anything, we all, we know what they look like" those have been removed on Section 27 of the Freedom of Information act which covers international relations. They are american secret projects that we are not allowed to see what they look like - 32 years later we're still not any of the wiser what these things are."
The first, lesser criticism that I have is that redacting information from a no-longer classified 'SECRET' document due to a perceived risk of damage to international relations does not, by any means, imply that the aircraft in question are still "secret" [Edit for clarity]. As others have commented before, there are also issues with the capability of the claimed aircraft as depicted in the prints and as claimed by supposed witnesses, insofar as no such technology is known to exist today, never mind in 1990. Anyway, on to my main point…
Neither Clarke nor Illsley seems to have read past page 9-8 (the page with the second redacted photograph) or, if they have, they've failed to spot that not two but three candidates for the aircraft depicted and discussed in the redacted text appear in the paper itself as line drawings - see pages 9-9 and 9-10 (Volume 2, Part G). These are the F-22 Raptor (Figure 6), the F-117 Nighthawk (aka the 'Stealth Fighter') (Figure 7) and the B2 Spirit ('Stealth Bomber'). These line drawings are credited to Janes, the well-known defence intelligence publisher. Being 'open source' intelligence they would pose no concerns over 'international relations' and so are left intact. The F-22 isn't mentioned in the unredacted text. Nor is any 'Figure 6' referenced in said text. Thus at least some of the redacted text must cover this type. The fact that the caption to Figure 6 specifies the 'production configuration' of the type might also imply that Figure 5 was a photograph of the YF-22A prototype, although of course I can't be as sure about that.
Although the F-117 and B2 are mentioned at paragraph 4, these too lack equivalent description/discussion text to that provided for the SR-71. I think it's quite likely that these types did not also originally have some text devoted to them, now redacted. Why redact information on and photos of these types? Unlike the Janes illustrations, actual photographs of the F-22, F-117 and B2 would not necessarily be open source and releasing them to the public might in theory be a concern viz Section 27. Perhaps the FOI officer applied to DD to clear these photos and related text and was denied or even ignored? Who knows, but for me it's far more likely that the redacted photos and info pertained to two or more of these three now well-known types than two designs that have somehow, for some reason, remained classified to this day.
Last edited:
Duke
Senior Member.
There are US black a/c from the 80/90s that remain classified today. I don't know if they are still flying, but they are still classified.
In Aug 1990, photos of both the F-117 and B-2 would have been available to the media, and seen by the public. The F-117 had flown combat in Panana (late 89) and put on public display at the Nellis Airshow in the spring of 1990. The B-2 rollout was in Nov 88 at Plant 42, with AW&ST getting a huge scoop with overhead photos that were not supposed to have been taken. First B-2 flight was less than a year later, and was announced to, and covered by, the media.
The F-22 had not flown yet in Aug 1990, but the YF-22 concept demonstrator had flown a month or two earlier. The media/public would have had numerous opportunities to get photos of both the YF-22 and its competitor, the YF-23. Both were vying to win the the USAF Advanced Tactical Fighter contract, awarded to LM in the spring of 91.
I really don't want to get into what projects may or may not still be classified (although from what I've seen evidence for the likes of 'Aurora' and 'TR3B' is sorely lacking). I'm addressing Clarke's claim that redactions in this report from 2000 = the Calvine object from 1990 is a 'black' aircraft.
banditsat12oclock
Member
As I understand it, we only have the MoD's word for it that the negatives were returned to the Daily Record (in the Loose Minute). The person writing that memo all those years ago might have been telling the truth, might have been mistaken, or could have been repeating a lie/mistake told to him. The document's author was presumably in Sec AS, whilst the real investigation was conducted by DI55, so we just don't know the truth of that claim.
Moreover, I believe David Clarke says he contacted several people at the Daily Record and could find no one who ever even heard of the negatives being returned, let alone saw them again. As before, though, this might be because they never were really returned, or they were but he was just asking the wrong people.
Last edited:
banditsat12oclock
Member
To be fair to him, I don't think he is saying they definitely are. All he's saying is that, at the moment, given the evidence he has released and extra stuff he knows but hasn't revealed, he's plumping for a black project aircraft as the likeliest answer. And that that craft could itself be in the Condign report under the redactions, but no one will ever know because the MoD has lost/destroyed all the originals. (And almost certainly wouldn't unredact the images even if it did find an original copy.)
Last edited:
Rory
Closed Account
I think a small correction to an otherwise excellent post: last I heard he wasn't convinced it's a stealth craft and so probably "thinks it was a stealth craft" is more accurate than "claims". He was still open to the hoax hypotheses - though obviously currently favours stealth craft above other explanations, pending evidence to the contrary.
Or the right people no longer worked there and were untraceable or were dead.
I think the "MoD never returned the negatives" narrative seems to be something favoured by those who have believe the cover-up/hidden shenanigans angle. But there doesn't seem to be any evidence to support it.
Question: if there was a case where the MoD didn't want other people to see the negatives/photos wouldn't they just keep them and say, nope, you can't have them back and not write down that they had returned them?
Last edited:
jarlrmai
Senior Member.
Do we think he believes the story told of the motion of the craft, i.e. the hovering and then shooting directly upwards part?
banditsat12oclock
Member
As regards the MoD never returning the negatives, there's no real evidence to support ANY thesis, only an ABSENCE of evidence from which to try and draw conclusions which may, due to their Wile E. Coyote thin-air foundations, all prove to be highly erroneous.
Maybe they did return them. Maybe they didn't. Maybe the negs got to the DR but then THEY lost/destroyed them (accidentally, deliberately, on the orders of the MoD, etc). No one knows is the truth of the matter (or possibly a few ageing people do know but aren't saying).
As regards your Q, is the MoD simply allowed to steal someone else's material in the manner described?
Moreover, why did the MoD conduct a second investigation? DI55 must have got its answers in the first investigation, so who ordered the second round and why? If the negatives had secretly been kept, was one section of MoD lying to another? Why hadn't copies been made by Sec AS for future study? If they had been returned to the DR or the photographer, why couldn't the second set of investigators request them again? And around and around we go...
Rory
Closed Account
I haven't heard him talk about that aspect of it (or if I have I don't remember it).
Could "not returning" be something other than "stealing"? Such as "do you mind if we keep these {for a little while/indefinitely)?"
I would imagine many places would comply with that - and especially one with an "ally" as an editor.
It's not 100% sure that it was the Calvine images that were looked at in the second investigation - but presumed likely.
Clarke hypothesised that:
External Quote:
Rory
Closed Account
I had a look at that and stitched the two parts of the report together, attached. Contains an image of a very funky looking concept craft too:
Interestingly, the pages before the paper on black aircraft are titled "Rarity of UAP sounds" (also attached) and talk about how most UAP reports describe the object as silent. The summary explanation is:
Isn't that a common theme in all UAP/UFO reports?
During the Belgian wave, which took place mainly in 1990 (the same year as the Calvine case):
Source: CHAPTER 2 THE UAP WAVE OVER BELGIUM by Major General Wilfried De Brouwer (Ret.) in Leslie Kean's bookExternal Quote:
And even back in 1950, when the Trent family took their famous McMinnville photos, the Condon report states:
Source: http://www.project1947.com/shg/condon/case46.htmlExternal Quote:
Duke
Senior Member.
Many? Yes. Most? Maybe. All? No. Over the years I've read accounts of UFOs making noises/sounds, using words like "whirring," "beeping," "whistling," "hissing," "humming," and "buzzing." It's also not uncommon for witnesses to compare sounds they claim to have heard to everyday or mundane sounds. Best one of those was the guy who claimed the UFO he saw made a sound like that of George Jetson's flying car.
Source: https://youtu.be/FNa1XHmYj6U
Famous UFO cases that featured sounds made by the "craft" include Falcon Lake, Levelland, Shag Harbor, and Delphos. I also remember reading some claimed to have heard sounds associated with a mass sighting reported as having been silent. I think that was Hudson Valley.
Rory
Closed Account
I don't think it's common to all UAP reports. For example, that paper says there are "occasional reports of sound" and there are plenty of cases where the witnesses describe "buzzing", "whining" or "humming" (examples).
The reason it struck me as interesting with regard to Calvine was because the lack of noise was what initially piqued Lindsay's curiosity:
Article: 'As a press officer for Scotland, I dealt with many UFO reports but most were just of lights in the sky. It was obvious this one was different. When I asked what sort of noise it had made, the man said, "It didn't make any noise at all." Up to that point I wasn't treating it very seriously but when he said it was silent, I suddenly realised there is no aircraft that I know of that is silent.'
Not that there's any reason to assume he would be aware that the majority of UAP reports were of silent objects/shapes/lights/craft.
Last edited:
Duke
Senior Member.
Or the photographers may have gotten them back.
Ann K
Senior Member.
There's also the fact that the sound from distant aircraft will come along later, and may not be associated with the sighting by a person all agog at what he saw.
Mendel
Senior Member.
Where would you ever find such a forum?
The paper is reported to have copied the Calvine negatives before passing them on to the MoD, as a routine precaution—possibly the "original negatives" that turned up in the Mcminnville case are also copies.
JMartJr
Senior Member.
I am a bit surprised that media depictions of whooshing spaceships, from the old Star Trek through Star Wars to the new Star Trek and Marvel films, have not seemed to impact this more. We all look for what we expect, and the media we consume would lead us to expect sounds from presumed spacecraft.
And I would have bet money that there would have been an uptick in musically communicative UFOs after Close Encounters, but to my knowledge there was not.
Duke
Senior Member.
Where would someone in rural Scotland circa 1990 have taken film to be developed? A photography shop? The local chemists/pharmacy? Did they have drive thru photo booths in rural Scotland?
Or I suppose the individual who took the photos could have had his own darkroom and neccessary materials to develop his own. I'd think anyone that much into photography might have belonged to a local photography enthusiasts group.
Since the newspaper and MoD knew who took the photos, they would have had no need to find out who took them. I wonder how much effort those who've investigated the case put into finding the photographer? Checking out local photography developers and photography groups would have been/could be good places to start.
Ann K
Senior Member.
Midsummer, the busy season, in a tourist area. I don't think it would be a problem.
Duke
Senior Member.
I agree, but the question isn't could they have been developed locally, it's where would they have been developed locally.
Rory
Closed Account
Apparently quite a lot, according to Clarke's accounts (going door to door, putting up posters, offering rewards, talking to people who worked in hotels at the time).
And, of course, now that the picture has emerged he has what is presumed to be the photographer's name, as well as having spoken to people who worked with/knew them at the time.
deirdre
Senior Member.
if youre offering a reward on posters, then you can't really guarantee the people you spoke with "knew them".
and if they dont think now they worked at Atholl Palace, wouldnt that mean nobody there knew them?
Rory
Closed Account
That's right.
Duke
Senior Member.
Since the photographer's name still isn't publicly known, apparently the door knocking, posters, and talking to hotel staff didn't work.
And yes, if the photographer's name was on the back of Lindsay's photo as as been reported, Dr Clarke would have the name. But didn't one of the articles posted about Lindsay handing over the photo say it was on the condition the name on the back was to not to be made public?
Rory
Closed Account
Indeed. And it hasn't been.
Duke
Senior Member.
So we're back to trying to find the identity of the photographer through means other than Dr Clarke.
I'd still like to know where film would have been developed in Calvine or thereabouts in 1990.
Rory
Closed Account
Back then a lot of it was done by post. But I don't think it's out of the question that Pitlochry might have had something, and certainly Perth would have. Though there's always the home development option too.
I don't think there is any other way, other than wait and see. They have way more info than anyone else and are light years ahead in terms of finding the photographer. Doesn't make sense to me that someone else would want to go on the hunt.
Last edited:
deirdre
Senior Member.
i dont know why it would have to be developed in Calvine or there abouts. If he was a temp holiday worker he could well have travelled from his parent's home to work, or stayed in a cheap hostel up to an hour away to save money.
deirdre
Senior Member.
well technically a MOD officer did release it to the public, as Clark and all his buddies are the public.
Duke
Senior Member.
Gotta start somewhere. Eliminate the low hanging fruit, then work outward. May not turn anything this late in the game, but could be worth the effort. Same with checking on local photography enthusiast groups. A thirty-plus year old phonebook and chamber of commerce records, if either still exists, would be the first step.
Last edited:
deirdre
Senior Member.
or we could leave him alone and let him decide if he wants to come forward.
Duke
Senior Member.
*shrug* Assuming he's still alive, he could come forward.
JMartJr
Senior Member.
If he comes forward, he might still have the other shots... that'd be nice. He could identify the spot where the pic was made, which could potentially rule out some hypotheses.
Last edited:
Ann K
Senior Member.
Agreed. But his silence is not surprising. Three decades later, there is no reason why he should have the same hobbies or interests. When I was young I would have found any UFO story to be interesting, but I certainly don't read tabloids in my adulthood. We shouldn't assume an individual who has moved on in his life (or moved away) is even aware of the renewed interest in this photo.
Similar threads
