Claim: Original Calvine UFO Photo

Rory

Senior Member.
The newspaper passed these photographs on to the MoD in this envelope:

1660407351592.png

PS If anyone's curious about the upside down name and address they're of a journalist (died in 2015) who worked for the Edinburgh Evening News.

Makes me wonder if maybe the photos weren't originally sent to a smaller newspaper first?
 

Rory

Senior Member.
If anyone's curious about the upside down name and address they're of a journalist (died in 2015) who worked for the Edinburgh Evening News.

Makes me wonder if maybe the photos weren't originally sent to a smaller newspaper first?

Apparently the name and address were "doodled" by Craig Lindsay and have no significance (according to David Clarke).

One other discrepancy to note: according to Nick Pope the photographers reported a low humming sound (which was reported yesterday in The Sun) whereas Lindsay says they told him it was silent:

'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.'

https://www.mailplus.co.uk/edition/features/211532
Content from External Source

Pope of course didn't join the UFO office until after the case had been dealt with.
 
Last edited:

DavidB66

Senior Member
PS If anyone's curious about the upside down name and address they're of a journalist (died in 2015) who worked for the Edinburgh Evening News.

Makes me wonder if maybe the photos weren't originally sent to a smaller newspaper first?
It seems fairly obvious that the photographer sold the photo(s) to a newspaper, with or without a 'bidding war'. The lucky recipient then had qualms about possible legal aspects (the Official Secrets Act, D Notices, etc) and out of public spirit and/or desire to cover their back decided to send them on to the Ministry of Defence.

The story then gets a bit murky. According to an earlier article by David Clarke (i.e. prior to his recently obtaining the photo) the MoD sent an officer to interview the photographer:

The hand-written [MoD] report does not say why the men [the photographer and his companion] were in the area but a source from Defence Intelligence claims they were poachers who had killed their prey and were posing with the animal when the ‘UFO’ appeared.

He claims a DI55 officer was sent to Scotland to examine the evidence and interview the men. The two photographers were reassured they not in any trouble as a result of their activities. Afterwards they simply ‘went on their way’. Their identity remains unknown and, since that time, they have not come forward with their version of the story.
If this account is correct, it implies that the two men just happened to be in the right place at the right time, with camera in hand, to take a lucky shot of an extraordinary event. Alternatively, they cooked up a fairly simple hoax in order to sell the story to a newspaper. The 'poaching' may have been a cover story. They would not have expected to stir up a hornet's nest. When Defence Intelligence came calling they may have 'owned up' to the hoax, which would help explain both why they have kept silent and why some of the details are still kept under wraps by the MoD: not because they reveal anything about advanced technology (human or alien) but because they reveal the possibly dubious methods of MoD investigations. (The MoD has its own special police force, but I don't know if it would have been used in this case.)

David Clarke's article is here:

https://drdavidclarke.co.uk/secret-files/the-calvine-ufo-photographs/
 

Rory

Senior Member.
It seems fairly obvious that the photographer sold the photo(s) to a newspaper, with or without a 'bidding war'.

I haven't read anything where it says the photos were sold.

The lucky recipient then had qualms about possible legal aspects (the Official Secrets Act, D Notices, etc) and out of public spirit and/or desire to cover their back decided to send them on to the Ministry of Defence.

That's very speculative and not in accordance with the story that's out there.

If this account is correct, it implies that the two men just happened to be in the right place at the right time, with camera in hand, to take a lucky shot of an extraordinary event.

Well, yes, these things happen.

Alternatively, they cooked up a fairly simple hoax in order to sell the story to a newspaper. The 'poaching' may have been a cover story. They would not have expected to stir up a hornet's nest. When Defence Intelligence came calling they may have 'owned up' to the hoax, which would help explain both why they have kept silent and why some of the details are still kept under wraps by the MoD: not because they reveal anything about advanced technology (human or alien) but because they reveal the possibly dubious methods of MoD investigations.

Lots more speculation.

But who knows? Now that the picture's out there perhaps the original photographers will come forward and reveal all. :)
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Comparing the zoomed version in the analysis (their arrows) to the version in the article.

2022-08-13_11-43-08.jpg
You see jpg artifacts (horizontal and vertical lines and boundaries) in the lower one. If you are string at it trying to discern surface details, then top one is probably going to be more useful.
 
The jet, of course, is moving, which would explain why it's out of focus, and it's possible that the tree branch was also in motion.

If the photographer were actually trying to get a quick picture of a low-flying jet that he saw approaching, he might have focused on the object then snapped the photo just when the jet reached his position.
A motion-blur does not look the same as a focus-blur. The image of the jet does not appear to be stretched out lengthwise, which would be the case if this were blurred because of motion. We don't know the exposure time, but apparently it was short enough to freeze the jet's motion.

I don't suppose that the fence was moving, as well? It's out-of-focus, just like the tree branches. And if the blur is attributed to camera motion, then why isn't the UFO similarly blurred?
 

Monomorphic

New Member
Mountain peak poking through dense fog seems to be a plausible explanation. The bottom sides of the UAP appear more billowy than the top. That small white fluff far left inside the UAP more resembles a wisp of clouds than surface details on a ship.

Someone on reddit did this overlay to show how a nearby mountain peak lines up. Skip to 12 seconds.

Source: https://youtu.be/xy-KBoZklV0?t=10
 
Now that the picture's out there perhaps the original photographers will come forward and reveal all. :)

Does someone have some explanation about why only one of the six photos was released to the public by the MoD?
I wonder if the other unreleased ones might feature a less "grainy" aspect of that UFO, especially if speculating that it's made of some kind of metallic material. Judging by its appearance though, that's the less likely possibility.
 

Rory

Senior Member.
It's interesting to me that before the photo surfaced David Clarke believed it was a hoax. Now that he's seen the picture he's thinking it's some sort of secret US craft:

When I last published an update on this story I concluded it must be a hoax. But now I am convinced the Calvine UFO photograph shows one of these US classified ‘Black Project’ programs.

https://drdavidclarke.co.uk/2022/08/12/the-calvine-ufo-revealed/
Content from External Source

If he's right about that then he's also in effect saying that he doesn't believe the photographers' story about it hovering in place for ten minutes.

Does someone have some explanation about why only one of the six photos was released to the public by the MoD?

Apparently this was the best one (though not released, kept by a press officer).
 
Last edited:

Vee7

New Member
Wow. That's a tremendously good match.

1660423290141.png

Do you have the link to the reddit thread?

I'm on board with this. Where's that original photo of the landscape from? Anyone got it handy to post here? Wanna look at it more closely.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
Does someone have some explanation about why only one of the six photos was released to the public by the MoD?
the MOD didnt release any photos.
an old agent had one in his personal possession, that [he says] the newspaper let him keep when he returned the photos and negatives.

I'm on board with this. Where's that original photo of the landscape from? Anyone got it handy to post here? Wanna look at it more closely.
it's from the video that Rory posted on page one.
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgekUVzMSCc&t=2100s&ab_channel=DisclosureTeam
 

Rory

Senior Member.
Where's that original photo of the landscape from? Anyone got it handy to post here?

1660425174490.png

Just looking to see if I can find the coordinates now. Looks like somewhere around 56.76127078349055, -3.9808696741626592.

Farragon Hill may be a candidate for the peak. Seems like the highest one in that general direction.
 

Rory

Senior Member.
Yeah, just thinking that. And if the fog obscured everything but the peak - therefore some incredibly heavy fog - why are we able to see the plane, the sky and the clouds?
 
Last edited:

Monomorphic

New Member
I am not convinced, what is the bottom of the diamond in that scenario?

Shadows from the fog and natural formations. Another wisp of fog obscuring the top of the peak. Snow line since this peak does have snow according to google earth.

As the UAP, that peak is also very pointy as seen from that direction in the google earth image below.

googleearthpeak.jpg

pointy_peak.jpg
 

jackfrostvc

Senior Member
Theories Ive seen so far:

1) Kite
2) Possible hill peak through fog
3) Reflection of a rock in water
4) Model hanging from a string below the tree branch
5) Balloon (Like the the columbia diamond UFO one was likely a balloon from a balloon festival)
 

Rory

Senior Member.
6) Reflection of an island
7) Double exposure
8) Craft of non-Earthly origin
9) Secret craft of Earthly origin
 

JudMcCranie

New Member
What's odd is that it appears that the "UFO" is the only thing actually in focus in the photo. The nearby tree branches, and the distant jet, are all out of focus. That doesn't make sense, unless the UFO is close to the camera. If the object were at least (say) a few hundred meters distant, that would almost certainly be close enough to the camera's infinity focus so that the jet would also be in focus. Most plausible explanation: the UFO is small and closer to the camera than anything else in the photo, and the focus was set for it.
The jet could be blurred because of its motion.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
7) Double exposure
don't forget though there were supposedly 5 (or was it 6?) photos. assuming the photos were somewhat the same with only planes changing positions, that would be hard to pull off. and guarantee the plane would show up about the same in them all.
 

JudMcCranie

New Member
Let me suggest a straw-man hypothesis for the Calvine photo, let's see if it can be torn down. It's based primarily on the focus of different objects.

1. Closest to the camera is the "UFO," a small object held up by one or more strings. Possibly a small kite. The camera's focus is set for this object.

2. Next closest to being in focus are the tree branches, farther away than the UFO.

3. Next closest is the fence, well beyond the tree branches.

4. The most distant object seen, the Harrier jet, is out of focus.

The principal take -away is, the presumably distant UFO is in focus while the actually distant jet is not. We still don't know what kind of camera and lens was used, so we can't quantify the depth of field. We also don't know the f/stop used, which determines the depth of field. The analysis of Andrew Robinson suggests that it was probably taken with a small 35mm camera, with a lens around 50-110mm focus. In other words, very ordinary.

If the UFO were at least as far as the tree leaves or the fence are from the camera, it, too, would be out-of-focus.
Is the jet out of focus, or is it blurred because it moved during the time the camera shutter was open? I can't tell.
 

jackfrostvc

Senior Member
I downloaded the National Archive records on the incident. There are three pages on the incident including what seems to be the hand written incident report.

Here are the pages on the Calvine UFO from the National Archive:

1660437974031.png
1660438004544.png

1660438030161.png
 
D

Deleted member 17800

Guest
Hi Mick and everyone else ' new member'.
I would firstly like to tell you a little of myself.
I restore damaged photographs to museum grade I'm a pro photographer and image manipulation with photographs is also my skill set.

The image I have uploaded is based on the basic newspaper print ( how I wish I had the negative.
I do NOT think it is an alien craft but a very perplexing image of a likely secret early drone/aircraft.

Looking at that image afore said I have outlined a basic perspective of what ' may ' be reality.
An optical illusion makes one think the ' underside ' of the craft is visible but I believe this to be incorrect and in actual fact a wing followed by the upturned wing tip.

Did early tech of drones exist in 1990?
Is it some kind of research vehicle.
Did it shoot straight up or 'appear ' to and moved within normal aerodynamics away and up from the photographer?

My first post here so be kind :)
 

Attachments

  • crop-19495493.jpg
    crop-19495493.jpg
    259.4 KB · Views: 48

Charlie Wiser

Active Member
Robinson in his analysis gives weather conditions for the day and says its consistent with the photo, but he doesn't specifically give evidence for the photo being taken at 9PM. I don't know how to analyze such things, but in UFO photos generally there are often strong opinions about what time a picture was taken based on shadows etc. Can someone do the same with this photo? The last thing it looks (feels) like, to me, is a photo taken 20 minutes before sunset, but I don't know how to assess the evidence.
 

Charlie Wiser

Active Member
Mountain peak poking through dense fog seems to be a plausible explanation. The bottom sides of the UAP appear more billowy than the top. That small white fluff far left inside the UAP more resembles a wisp of clouds than surface details on a ship.

Someone on reddit did this overlay to show how a nearby mountain peak lines up. Skip to 12 seconds.
I don't understand the position of the plane in this overlay - how can it be flying so low?
 

Rory

Senior Member.
Yeah, not that low. I've been atop valley ridges in England and seen military planes way down there.

in UFO photos generally there are often strong opinions about what time a picture was taken based on shadows etc. Can someone do the same with this photo? The last thing it looks (feels) like, to me, is a photo taken 20 minutes before sunset, but I don't know how to assess the evidence.

Civil twilight is around 10.10pm at Calvine for August 4th. Dark comes long and slow at those latitudes. Doesn't seem unreasonable to me (as someone who grew up in the north of England). But I'm also not averse to the idea that the time, date and location are possibly unreliable.
 

Rory

Senior Member.
The last thing it looks (feels) like, to me, is a photo taken 20 minutes before sunset, but I don't know how to assess the evidence.

You can probably find better videos than this - eg, with date info from the right time of year - but this is the first I landed on and maybe suffices. It's a walking tour of Edinburgh (further south) starting at around 8.30pm and posted in October 2020 (so maybe filmed a little before October). You can see the sky very clearly and it's not dissimilar.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bpl82J52ShI&ab_channel=WalkingBeast
 

Ann K

Senior Member.
Yeah, not that low. I've been atop valley ridges in England and seen military planes way down there.



Civil twilight is around 10.10pm at Calvine for August 4th. Dark comes long and slow at those latitudes. Doesn't seem unreasonable to me (as someone who grew up in the north of England). But I'm also not averse to the idea that the time, date and location are possibly unreliable.
At a rough estimate, Calvine is about 160 miles even farther north than Carlisle, in the north of England. I can attest to the long, long twilights: I've been in northern Scotland in summertime, and could still read newsprint outside at midnight.
 

Charlie Wiser

Active Member
At a rough estimate, Calvine is about 160 miles even farther north than Carlisle, in the north of England. I can attest to the long, long twilights: I've been in northern Scotland in summertime, and could still read newsprint outside at midnight.
It's not so much the amount of light, just the way the sky looks and the shadows - whether they can be measured to assess the time. It does seem unlikely this sort of info can be extracted, though, because of the low quality image.
 
Top