Claim: Original Calvine UFO Photo

Duke

Active Member
what's a GO?


that's likely just Pope making an assumption of why the photo was taken down

Article:
During his time with the ministry, Pope had a blown-up copy of the photograph on his office wall until it was personally taken down by his superior. He recalled: "My head of division removed it and put it in his drawer because he was convinced, wrongly in my opinion, that it showed a top secret prototype craft.
General Officer

He states it was taken down because "he," his boss, was convinced it was a secret prototype craft. Pope didn't agree with him, but that's why it was taken down. Pope says essentially samething on his website.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
but that's why it was taken down.
that's why POPE speculates it was taken down. I have never seen him quote his superior saying "im taking this down because it shows a top secret prototype craft".
and..he didnt add that speculation in his book.

basically:
everything Pope says may or may not be true.
everything Clarke says may or may not be true.
everything Stu Little says may or may not be true.
everything Lindsay says may or may not be true.


so far Lindsay is the only one that has produced anything even remotely like evidence backing up his statements (as he DID have possession of the photo). But people "saying things", are just people "saying things". I can "say things" too, start a web page to print my sayings or start a youtube channel to spread my sayings, write a book.
 

Duke

Active Member
Obviously they made multiple copies of it - you also contradict yourself by saying "no doubt they did" - and Lindsay has said that he saw the poster of his photo when he visited the office in London.



Yep, it says the boss took it down, not that Pope was forced to (Pope says this in all his writing on the subject). And if you remember I posted the (almost) full chapter from Pope's book some days back (though there are only two or three paragraphs on Calvine).



Pure speculation. He didn't "stash", he kept a copy and showed it to many people over the next several years. And there's no reason to think it wasn't in the file - especially when the MoD's notes say they received all six negatives.

There's been a few occasions now where you've posted things that were mistaken and/or untrue - in amongst some otherwise excellent posts - and given that we're in the business of 'debunking' we really ought to be more careful not to start 'new bunk'. Also good to read what's come before, to try not to repost things that have already been discussed, and to avoid speculating about things that aren't related to a debunk/explanation - and, really, barring new information coming in (probably not as likely as it once was given the way certain people have talked about Clarke and his team) I wonder if there's really anything left to discuss?
The word "stashed" was used by Dr Clarke in his "Daily Mail" acticle to describe Lindsay's action relative to the photo. I merely repeated it.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...rogram.html?ito=native_share_article-masthead

Relative to the exact photo Lindsay gave Dr Clarke, my comment was Pope could not have seen that photo since it wasn't sent to the MoD. I allowed he could have seen a copy, but the statement in Pope's website said "Nick Pope has neither confirmed nor denied that it’s one of the originals that he had access to at the MoD." I was addressing the original photo Lindsay gave Dr Clarke, one Pope couldn't have seen in the 90s because it wasn't sent.

If your point was Pope didn't physically remove the poster, Ok. I should have said the poster was removed because his boss thought it was a classified a/c. The reason it was taken down is what I was talking about, that it wasn't taken down because it was a fake. According to Pope, it was taken down because his boss, rightly or wrongly, was convinced it was a real (i.e. not hoaxed) photo of a classified a/c.
 
Last edited:

Rory

Senior Member.
Relative to the exact photo Lindsay gave Dr Clarke, my comment was Pope could not have seen that photo since it wasn't sent to the MoD. I allowed he could have seem a copy, but the statement in Pope's website said "Nick Pope has neither confirmed nor denied that it’s one of the originals that he had access to at the MoD." I was addressing the original photo Lindsay gave Dr Clarke, one Pope couldn't have seen in the 90s because it wasn't sent.

Question is: how is any of that relevant to an explanation/debunk of what the photo shows?

How is anything Nick Pope says relevant given that he hasn't had any new information in almost 30 years and keeps changing his story?

And what difference does it makes whether Pope saw a copy of Lindsay's photo or Lindsay saw a copy of a photo that was sent to London and made into a poster or they saw the same physical photo?

If your point was Pope didn't physically remove the poster

My point was: why say something ("Pope was forced") that simply isn't true?

I should have said the poster was removed because his boss thought it was a classified a/c

No, you don't know that. As Deirdre pointed out, that's Pope's pure speculation. And, again, who removed the poster and why - though interesting in a kind of fill-in-all-holes and gossip kind of sense - is irrelevant. The only relevant thing would be if the guy who removed it appeared and said why they did it and what happened to it. Otherwise it's all just immaterial guess work.
 

Duke

Active Member
Question is: how is any of that relevant to an explanation/debunk of what the photo shows?

How is anything Nick Pope says relevant given that he hasn't had any new information in almost 30 years and keeps changing his story?

And what difference does it makes whether Pope saw a copy of Lindsay's photo or Lindsay saw a copy of a photo that was sent to London and made into a poster or they saw the same physical photo?



My point was: why say something ("Pope was forced") that simply isn't true?



No, you don't know that. As Deirdre pointed out, that's Pope's pure speculation. And, again, who removed the poster and why - though interesting in a kind of fill-in-all-holes and gossip kind of sense - is irrelevant. The only relevant thing would be if the guy who removed it appeared and said why they did it and what happened to it. Otherwise it's all just immaterial guess work.
I was responding to Charlie Wiser's post as to why he thought Pope might be distancing himself from the photo. And again, I explained why the photo was removed according to Pope. He was there, we weren't.

I posted the excerpt from Pope's website because, as far as I've been able to find, that's the only comment he's made since Dr Clarke released the photo. Seems odd since he broke the story.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
Otherwise it's all just immaterial guess work.
i agree. everything we hear is. the only help Clarke or Pope or this alleged mysterious D155 agent etc could be is to pinpoint an actual location.

I find the photo suspicious on that alone. the Calvine area? near A1? please, if this was a serious thing someone would make the photographer take them to the location or have him point to it on a map. Even if just to prove some rogue Harrier pilots (or tornado pilots or whatever) weren't doing something they weren't supposed to do.

other ufo report sin those archives are more specific as to location. Anyway the whole story is weird. (ps..how about two parchment piping bags stuck together? was watching a baking show last night...this would explain the tips being wonky and the slightly crushed "upper" point.)
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
He was there, we weren't.
and he also used this story for financial gain. i know that proves nothing, but, personally, once someone starts spreading ufo stories and getting paid for it, to me their credibility becomes quite iffy. again, that doesnt prove anyone is being deceitful...but
 

Rory

Senior Member.
I was responding to Charlie Wiser's post as to why he

I'm hearing rumors that Charlie isn't a "he". ;)

And again, I explained why the photo was removed according to Pope. He was there, we weren't.

Pope also said:

"Somewhere along the line the photo disappeared, but I have no idea whether it was genuinely misplaced or whether it was treated as something we shouldn't have seen and put through a shredder."

https://web.archive.org/web/2012032.../close-encounters-of-pitlochry-kind-1-1305251
Content from External Source
So clearly he doesn't actually know: he's just speculating and his story has changed several times over the years.

I find the photo suspicious on that alone. the Calvine area? near A1?

A9.
 
Last edited:

Duke

Active Member
and he also used this story for financial gain. i know that proves nothing, but, personally, once someone starts spreading ufo stories and getting paid for it, to me their credibility becomes quite iffy. again, that doesnt prove anyone is being deceitful...but
A few years back on another forum, I defended Michael Shermer when another poster questioned the man's credibility because he was doing it to make money. Of course he is, just like Pope or anyone else on either side of the fence who makes a living, even if only in part, dealing with the kinds of issues we discuss.
 

Rory

Senior Member.
Addendum: Pope makes the same claim here on the Calvine entry on his website.

http://nickpope.net/wpte19/the-calvine-ufo/

No he doesn't. Whoever wrote that says "his head of division removed it".

You've got to admit, it's kind of peculiar that you would write something, be challenged on it, and then point to two sources to back it up - neither of which agree with what you wrote but rather agree with the challenge.

Also cool to see that that webpage has a link to metabunk. :)
 

Duke

Active Member
I'm hearing rumors that Charlie isn't a "he". ;)



Pope also said:

"Somewhere along the line the photo disappeared, but I have no idea whether it was genuinely misplaced or whether it was treated as something we shouldn't have seen and put through a shredder."

https://web.archive.org/web/2012032.../close-encounters-of-pitlochry-kind-1-1305251
Content from External Source
So clearly he doesn't actually know: he's just speculating and his story has changed several times over the years.
We disagree here. That statement by Pope only lends itself to answering where the post went, not why it was taken down. He has been very clear why he believes it was taken down. If you don't believe him, or don't think he knows the real reason, that fine. It doesn't change the fact he has said what he's said.
 

Duke

Active Member
No he doesn't. Whoever wrote that says "his head of division removed it".

You've got to admit, it's kind of peculiar that you would write something, be challenged on it, and then point to two sources to back it up - neither of which agree with what you wrote but rather agree with the challenge.

Also cool to see that that webpage has a link to metabunk. :)
The point I was making was why the poster was taken down, to respond to Charlie's post about Pope distancing himself from the Lindsay photo because he was fooled by a hoax. As I said earlier, I was wrong when I inferred Pope physically took down the poster, but I was concentrating more on the why (which you don't accept anyway) than the who.
 
Last edited:

deirdre

Senior Member.
A few years back on another forum, I defended Michael Shermer when another poster questioned the man's credibility because he was doing it to make money. Of course he is, just like Pope or anyone else on either side of the fence who makes a living, even if only in part, dealing with the kinds of issues we discuss.
i stand by what i said. if Nick Pope is just saying things, then Nick Pope is just saying things. If Micheal Shermer is just saying things then Micheal Shermer is just saying things. If Fox News is just saying things, then Fox News is just saying things, If Mick West is just saying things then Mick West is just saying things.

and if any of them is possibly motivated to "say things" for financial gain, then even more reason to ask them to back up their ponderings with proof. Mick backs up pretty much everything he says with proof. John Greenwalde backs up the things he says with proof, and if he does speculate he keeps reminding us he is speculating.

Nick Pope makes extraordinary claims, typically he is supposed to present extraordinary evidence.. but i'd be happy with any evidence every once in a while. He is being cagey because he doesn't want to admit that he totally made up that photo he passes around as his recreation of what he saw.
He isnt breaking any confidentiality laws to say, "i never saw a picture that looks like that".
 

Rory

Senior Member.
That statement by Pope only lends itself to answering where the poster went

That's all I was addressing. That and the fact that his story has changed; that he's given contradictory accounts; that it's mostly speculative; and that the clear inference from that is that he actually doesn't know where it went or why it was taken down (detailed here).

Anyway, let's all just try to avoid writing things that aren't true.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
Anyway, let's all just try to avoid writing things that aren't true.
this might be implying a bit too harshly Duke was being deceptive.

I think most everyone on Metabunk needs to remember to use their modifying words when writing. words like "allegedly" or "according to so and so". we are all guilty of forgetting to do this from time to time, especially when we think the people we are addressing have been thoroughly following along the convo...that's why i gave you a hard time about your summary write up. You werent being deceptive but your wording (or lack of wording) was a bit misleading. You needed more "allegedly"s and "according to"s. :)

like.."an alleged insider view" vs "an insider view"
 

Rory

Senior Member.
this might be implying a bit too harshly Duke was being deceptive.

I hope not, and it certainly wasn't my intention. I definitely don't think that.

I think most everyone on Metabunk needs to remember to use their modifying words when writing. words like "allegedly" or "according to so and so". we are all guilty of forgetting to do this from time to time, especially when we think the people we are addressing have been thoroughly following along the convo...

Very much agreed.

that's why i gave you a hard time about your summary write up. You werent being deceptive but your wording (or lack of wording) was a bit misleading. You needed more "allegedly"s and "according to"s. :)

Well why on Earth didn't you say something while the edit window was still open? ;)
 

Duke

Active Member
That's all I was addressing. That and the fact that his story has changed; that he's given contradictory accounts; that it's mostly speculative; and that the clear inference from that is that he actually doesn't know where it went or why it was taken down (detailed here).

Anyway, let's all just try to avoid writing things that aren't true.
Btw, I haven't forgotten about the question if Pope knew the identities of both witnesses. I checked our emails, he talked more in general talked about not being able to use the information he gained from the official file on Calvine in his post-MoD activities.

It was looking to answer this question that sent me to his website entry on Calvine to see if that might have been where I read it. Didn't find the statement I remembered, but did find this quote.

"Later, the MoD, the National Archives and the Information Commissioner’s Office ruled that the identities of the witnesses should be withheld until 2076, in line with data protection provisions in the UK’s Freedom of Information Act."

"Witnesses" implies two (or more) people whose identities are being withheld. As far as I know, the only two witnesses were the chef/dishwashers. If that's the case, it sounds like they knew both identities to withhold them. Doesn't mean Pope saw/knew them, but does imply both identities were in official records.

I will continue to look for what I remember.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
but did find this quote.

"Later, the MoD, the National Archives and the Information Commissioner’s Office ruled that the identities of the witnesses should be withheld until 2076, in line with data protection provisions in the UK’s Freedom of Information Act."
that's not a quote. it just text from Pope's narrative.
(only pointing this out because your wording makes it sound like Pope was quoting someone)

1662145614345.png
http://nickpope.net/wpte19/the-calvine-ufo/
 

Rory

Senior Member.
that's not a quote. it just text from Pope's narrative.
(only pointing this out because your wording makes it sound like Pope was quoting someone)

Indeed. And if we follow the link provided on the page on Pope's site where Duke found that "quote" it doesn't say anything about how many witnesses' identities are being withheld (ie, whether one or two or more):

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 [and] closed for the lifetime of the subject, which is assumed to be 100 years from subject’s date of birth.

https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk...formation-requests/1990-calvine-ufo-incident/
Content from External Source

One thing to note that I don't think we've discussed: the answers there say the file is closed until 2076, which implies the youngest person included in those pages was born in 1976. That means they were 13 or 14 in August 1990.

What explains the discrepancy? Clarke wrote 2076 in The Daily Mail but is quoted as saying 2072 in Newsweek, and 2072 is also reported in other news outlets such as The Daily Mirror and The Courier.

This National Archives site, however, has 2076 and would seem the most authoritative:

1662146838646.png

It's interesting because it changes the assumed age of the photographer from 18, since that was based on an opening date of 2072.

Also interesting to note that it says "closed for 84 years" - which I presume means it was closed in 1992 - and again tallies with the 2076 date, since 2072 minus 84 isn't (1988) isn't possible.

More details about this file's closure here:

https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk...n/information-requests/defe-24-1940-ufo-file/
 
Last edited:

Rory

Senior Member.
Article:
In 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,

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.


This implies that the younger of the witnesses was born in 1972, and so would be 18 in 1990.

Going by the above, the "18 in 1990" would seem to be in doubt.

(The 2072 quoted there comes from the Scottish Sun article rather than the official files.)
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
That means they were 14 at the time of the incident.
if anyone actually asked the photographer his age. maybe they noticed his date of birth wasnt in the record so went with 14 just to be on the safe side. <pure speculation of course. because i was highly doubting anyone would hire 18 year olds as chefs, and i certainly dont believe anyone would hire 14 year olds as chefs. although...hhmm, for some reason im thinking in America you would work younger than 16 IF it was like your families restaurant...but don't quote me on that.
 

Duke

Active Member
that's not a quote. it just text from Pope's narrative.
(only pointing this out because your wording makes it sound like Pope was quoting someone)

1662145614345.png
http://nickpope.net/wpte19/the-calvine-ufo/
I identified Pope's site, then actually changed the word from "statement" to "quote" to specifiy it was from Pope's site. I then put quotes around what I took out of his site. Had I quoted another document or source, I would have identified it.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.

Rory

Senior Member.
if anyone actually asked the photographer his age. maybe they noticed his date of birth wasnt in the record so went with 14 just to be on the safe side. <pure speculation of course. because i was highly doubting anyone would hire 18 year olds as chefs, and i certainly dont believe anyone would hire 14 year olds as chefs. although...hhmm, for some reason im thinking in America you would work younger than 16 IF it was like your families restaurant...but don't quote me on that.

Even today it's legal to work part-time at 13 in the UK, and would have been back then too.

Chef, though? I doubt it. And given Clarke says he's talked to their work colleagues I would think he would know if they were actually a child.

Also:

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.

https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk...n/information-requests/defe-24-1940-ufo-file/
Content from External Source

So I'm thinking some other reason for the 2076-100=1976. For example, some of the incidents in DEFE 24/1940 may have been reported by children in cases completely unrelated to Calvine.

I'm beginning to think the idea they were 18 - if it's only based off these dates - is a red herring.

I cited Pope's site, then actually changed the word from "statement" to "quote" to specifiy it was from Pope's site.

So what I would say there is, knowing that Pope sometimes gets things wrong and knowing that's not an official statement, the thing to do is to go to the original source and see what that says. Other than on what he saw and heard between 1991 and 1994 - and of course take that with a pinch of salt - Pope's not really an authority on Calvine.
 
Last edited:

deirdre

Senior Member.
Chef, though? I doubt it
according to this modern day site (and it notes that local jurisdictions have different rules)
Article:
What work can I not do?

Most local authorities will not allow children under school leaving age to:

work in a cinema, theatre, disco, dance hall or nightclub (except for a show involving only children or as a licensed performer)
sell or deliver alcohol (except in sealed containers)
deliver milk or fuel oils
work in a commercial kitchen
 

Rory

Senior Member.
i thought he couldnt find any work colleagues? if he found work colleagues then where did they work?

He says not at the Atholl Palace Hotel. It was posted some days ago.

according to this modern day site

I was thinking more along the lines of "how do you become a trained chef at 13?" rather than "can I legally work in a kitchen at 13?" ;)

And certainly back in 1990 people wouldn't have cared too much about those sorts of legalities (I was drinking in pubs at 14 in 1990).

But, anyway, if the only thing informing their ages is the opening date of 2076 then they could just have easily been in their mid-20s. Perhaps there's something else.
 
Last edited:

deirdre

Senior Member.
"how do you become a trained chef at 13?"
you should see the Kids Chopped show or Kids baking championships. they are like 9. most say grandma taught them. :)


edit add: @Rory i should note they do cut themselves or burn themselves or set things on fire at times. they are younger than 14 but i would assume kitchen work might still fall under "dangerous" for a 14 year old, or a non-family member? 14 year old. and i guess the insurance company probably wouldnt like it much.
 
Last edited:

deirdre

Senior Member.
I guess he's talked to a lot of people in the area, visited places, put up flyers, posted in local online groups, etc.
i think we are miscommunicating.

And given Clarke says he's talked to their work colleagues I would think he would know if they were actually a child.
what work colleagues did Clark talk to?
i'm gonna start calling them co-workers, fyi, because i have a hell of time typing the c word with my dyslexic fingers!
 

Rory

Senior Member.
But, anyway, if the only thing informing their ages is the opening date of 2076 then they could just have easily been in their mid-20s. Perhaps there's something else.

Had a quick look in DEFE 24/1940 and found at least one case where a child had been named. So I think it's safe to say some of the redacted details are of people who were born in/around 1976 and were unrelated to the Calvine incident.

Also got confirmation from David Clarke that the opening date of 2076 isn't just related to Calvine but to the file as a whole. So basically any speculation on the Calvine witnesses' ages based on that opening date is kind of fruitless.

So that's something.

(Not that it helps any in figuring out what the photo shows: only updates some past information.)
 
Last edited:

deirdre

Senior Member.
but remember a witness was claimed to be a dishwasher, that could be the younger one
oh yea i can totally believe them both to be dishwashers, or busboys. it's just the "chef" claim i always found odd. unless it is his family's restaurant/hotel, then i can see an 18 year old taking that position.
 

Ann K

Senior Member.
if anyone actually asked the photographer his age. maybe they noticed his date of birth wasnt in the record so went with 14 just to be on the safe side. <pure speculation of course. because i was highly doubting anyone would hire 18 year olds as chefs, and i certainly dont believe anyone would hire 14 year olds as chefs. although...hhmm, for some reason im thinking in America you would work younger than 16 IF it was like your families restaurant...but don't quote me on that.
I worked (in Ohio) at the age of fourteen. I had to go downtown and get a work permit, and my father had to sign his permission. The school also had to OK it. This was about a thousand years ago, but the work permit requirements still seem to be the same. It's already been discussed that "chefs" in this case seem also to have been dishwashers. His age might well have been 14.
 

Rory

Senior Member.
His age might well have been 14.

You think? Lindsay described them as "holiday workers" and said they'd driven their car to Calvine.

"Young" seems to be about the best estimate based on what we've heard.
 

aware

New Member
Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/x46ail/calvine_uap_site_visit/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
redditor from r/ufo claims to have found site of photo taken. Source: https://youtu.be/v7S8M-WKe9c
around the 2:00 mark he goes where the photo was taken. “
Calvine UAP site visit

I visited the Cavine site in Scotland this morning 2022/09/02. These are my observations.

The summit An Teampan is approximately 450m high. It does seem strange for 2 men to walk up this at 9pm at night after working a shift at a hotel, especially in October. It’s a steep climb to the summit and I’m not sure why they were going to the top on that evening, it’s not really a well known walk compared to other places in the local area.

I had a look around the site and the trees would provide enough cover for them to remain hidden from view. The busy A9 road is close by, and the UAP would have been in clear sight of motorists if they happened to look up. It’s surprising that the military would test some new tech so close to a busy road.

I had a look for water sources to see if they had taken a photo of a rock reflection. At the site I said there was no still water around, however, when I headed back down to Struan I found a still part of the river with a pointy rock. I’ve linked my photo here.”

https://imgur.io/1mOom0T
He also has another video of the river at the bottom of the hill. Source: https://youtu.be/-NBgFyXOec8
around 00:30 mark he shows some rocks in the river.
 

Rory

Senior Member.
redditor from r/ufo claims to have found site of photo taken.

Weird: another guy went there last week and did the same thing and neither of them made an attempt to recreate the low angle of the original photo - ie, showing the top of the fence but no countryside.

I wonder if someone else will go and it'll be third time lucky. ;)

One striking thing though is how far the trees are from the fence (from around 2:35). I wonder how that squares with the overhanging branch in the Lindsay photo?
 
Last edited:

deirdre

Senior Member.
Weird: another guy went there last week and did the same thing and neither of them made an attempt to recreate the low angle of the original photo - ie, showing the top of the fence but no countryside.
because you can't. the angle dont work esp as we see how steep the hill if from this vid.

i do see a fence post above the trees...IF there was a fence line there, then the angle would work (although would the Harriers still be in the valley?)
9-2-2022 8-42-16 PM.jpg


this shot taken from an a9 pulloff near calvine, just to show that a fence above you would work visually
1662166993132.png

from video:
1662167194141.png

1662167247181.png
 
Top