Claim: Original Calvine UFO Photo

it's a stretch ....but could the hearsay of the american guy be referring more to "its proof of a spoof" since the alleged harriers escaped detection?
Who know why whoever chose what word thirty-plus years ago? What I do know is senior officials at that level, at least in the USAF/DoD, choose their words very carefully. They attend an extensive senior leader level course euphemistically referred to as "charm school" where they are taught, among other things, the importance of how you say something is as important as what you say. (And no, I didn't take that course, but did take concentrated instruction covering specifically that topic when I became a program manager and was requested to be interviewed by various aerospace and defense industry publications.)

Officials at that level also usually have a Public Affairs Officer on their staff, or at least on call, to review and comment on statements/documents meant for public consumption. With the advent of FOIA, we were taught to assume every document we wrote or commented on would be made public.
 
As a Brit, does "spoof" in the context used above seem reasonable to you?
Yes- it might not be the first word I'd use, but Vattic and FatPhil are right.
"Spoof" might be used in the UK for a fake or hoax, the only thing I can add is that "spoof" normally implies something done for amusement (even if the only person amused is the spoofer!)
I think most people here would think Air Cdre Baldwin was saying the Calvine photo was a hoax.

Edited to add- I've heard or read "spoof" used in the sense you (Duke) mention as well, along the lines of, e.g., "Lancasters dropped Window in an attempt to spoof German radar".
 
Last edited:
Yes- it might not be the first word I'd use, but Vattic and FatPhil are right.
"Spoof" might be used in the UK for a fake or hoax, the only thing I can add is that "spoof" normally implies something done for amusement (even if the only person amused is the spoofer!)
I think most people here would think Air Cdre Baldwin was saying the Calvine photo was a hoax.
And this is how I was accustomed to hearing the term used in the UK upon being introduced to "Spitting Image" during trips to the UK in the 90s. Their take on Prince Philip and the Queen Mother had me in stitches.

Edited to add- I've heard or read "spoof" used in the sense you (Duke) mentions as well, along the lines of, e.g., "Lancasters dropped Window in an attempt to spoof German radar".
It must be correct in that context, dictionary.com says so. ;)
 
Thinking about Baldwin's use of "spoof"- and it's conjecture on my part- is that maybe he used the term just to be polite, i.e. "spoof" implying that the image was a joke, as opposed to "hoax" implying that the image was a lie /malicious deception.
 
Yes, it's better to quote the original source, when possible, but sometimes they are not readily available.
Agreed. but in that case we dont really know if it's true or written accurately. Either way our high schools and universities say students can't use wiki as a source (just saying).
Article:
This page in a nutshell: Do not use a Wikipedia article as a source for another Wikipedia article.
 
Do you have a link for these pages so we can take a look?
From The National Archives website (National= UK). The UFO stuff was free to download but you have to open an account.
File DEFE 31/180/1. "UFO incidents; with redactions", dated 20 June 1991 - 10 March 1992.
https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/results/r?_q=DEFE+31/180/1&_sd=&_ed=&_hb=

Pages 36, 37. A lot of empty space, but I decided to post the pages whole. Not sure what the yellow dialogue box means (it is part of the image as downloaded):
.DEFE-31-180-11024_36.jpgDEFE-31-180-11024_37.jpg
Pages 54, 55, 56. Page 55 is interesting.

DEFE-31-180-11024_54.jpgDEFE-31-180-11024_55.jpgDEFE-31-180-11024_56.jpg

Page 55 includes the intriguing line
"...but sensitivity of material suggests very special handling"
marking it out as the form that David Clarke refers to on his blog "Dr David Clarke Folklore and Journalism"
https://drdavidclarke.co.uk/national-archives-ufo-files-7/national-archives-ufo-files-3/ 17th para / text block down.

As far as I can see, the only link with the Calvine image in pages 54-56 is the reference to the requested task being
"A RETASK OF AN ORIGINAL PASSED IN SEP. 90" [Capitals in original] and the reference to
"..5 (FIVE) VU-FOILS..." (Sic?) but I think the connection is there.

Note for younger metabunkers- a viewfoil was a transparent, flexible sheet, often A4 paper size, which could be printed on or written/ drawn on with marker-style pens. An overhead projector was used to project the image onto a whiteboard. I don't think I've heard the term for 25 years! Before "Powerpoint" and the like, an OHP and viewfoils (AKA transparencies, acetates) were widely used for presentations and as teaching aids in offices, classrooms etc.

I must admit, while my suspicion is that the Calvine photo is a hoax, probably along the lines demonstrated by Wim Van Utrecht
(A Christmas tree decoration or similar, and possibly a model Harrier, hung on fishing line), "Page 55" (above) has me wondering if the diamond is indeed a flying craft as claimed (although I also think that that would be extraordinary).

Immediately before the "Calvine pictures" in DEFE 31/180/1 (i.e., originally filed immediately after the Calvine pics) there are a number of pages from Aviation Week and Space Technology magazine, cell-phone shots of the originals have already been posted by Duke.
I don't know if their inclusion in DEFE 31/180/1 next to the Calvine pics is significant, or coincidence. As stated in an earlier post the materials appear to be in chronological order, the Calvine pictures and the AW&ST pages were both filed between the 3rd and 5th of February 1992 inclusive.
These are the relevant pages (28-35), I don't want those who aren't interested to get scrolling fatigue so click to enlarge!

DEFE-31-180-11024_28.jpgDEFE-31-180-11024_29.jpgDEFE-31-180-11024_30.jpgDEFE-31-180-11024_31.jpgDEFE-31-180-11024_32.jpgDEFE-31-180-11024_33.jpgDEFE-31-180-11024_34.jpgDEFE-31-180-11024_35.jpg

The image from DEFE 31/180/1 page 30, copied from Aviation Week & Space Technology December 1990 does have a resemblance, as Duke and former member Rory have pointed out.
I would be surprised if whoever was responsible for the "UFO file" hadn't noticed the similarity between this and the Calvine picture considering they were filed within two days of each other, so maybe these images following the Calvine picture wasn't a coincidence.
(Here's a clearer image, borrowed from David Clarke's blog, link as above):
AW&ST Dec 1990.JPG

(I find the detail of the weapon-release mechanism utterly unconvincing, though- seems a bit pointless having such an amazing aircraft if you then have to slow down directly over the target and use big springs to deliver stores apparently modelled on WW1 artillery shells).

The pdf of National Archives file DEFE 31/180/1, "UFO incidents; with redactions" is attached,
pdf, 36.6MB, 204 pages.

EDITED 07/04/23- I meant to say "Page 55 is interesting." Page 56 is boring as.
 

Attachments

  • DEFE-31-180-1.pdf
    36.6 MB · Views: 127
Last edited:
/
Pages 54, 55, 56. Page 56 is interesting.

DEFE-31-180-11024_55.jpgDEFE-31-180-11024_56.jpg

Page 55 includes the intriguing line
"...but sensitivity of material suggests very special handling"
marking it out as the form that David Clarke refers to on his blog "Dr David Clarke Folklore and Journalism"
https://drdavidclarke.co.uk/national-archives-ufo-files-7/national-archives-ufo-files-3/ 17th para / text block down.
Do I understand correctly, the "...but sensitivity of material suggests very special handling" on this form was part of the "retasking" effort a year or two removed from the original event? If so, I suspect this may refer to domestic partisan political sensitivities as to whether the US was flying black a/c through UK airspace, as opposed necessarily to the particular "craft" in the Calvine photos.
 
Agreed. but in that case we dont really know if it's true or written accurately. Either way our high schools and universities say students can't use wiki as a source (just saying).
You can't use any encyclopedia as a source in a scholarly work (unless you're studying encyclopedias). Fortunately, metabunk doesn't aspire to such high standards, so using wikipedia as a source is both fine and useful.
Article:
This page in a nutshell: Do not use a Wikipedia article as a source for another Wikipedia article.
From that same page, right above your excerpt:
This page is about using Wikipedia as a citation in another Wikipedia article and not about using Wikipedia in general.
For critiques of Wikipedia's reliability for readers, see Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia is not so great. For information on citing Wikipedia as a source in an academic setting, see Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia.
Content from External Source
See also:
Article:
Normal academic usage of Wikipedia is for getting the general facts of a problem
and that typically helps focus metabunk discussions.
 
Wikipedia supports a particular claim of evidence. It can be debunked with a superior claim (or claims) of evidence. It is better to use Wikipedia as a jumping off point for further research. Wikipedia is fine for Metabunk. It just may be wrong.
 
Do I understand correctly, the "...but sensitivity of material suggests very special handling" on this form was part of the "retasking" effort a year or two removed from the original event?
Yes, I think so. The cover note (page 54) with the same reference number as p.55 (00920009) is dated 29 January 1992 if I understand it correctly.
 
if some random person at the New York Times (like Leslie Keane) or on Twitter agrees with you, then what you are saying is automatically less wrong. everyone knows that ;)
Just seemed ironic. Someone making a definitive claim ("even more true") on the credibility, or lack thereof, of unnamed sources, without naming a source to support that definitive claim.
 
Al
Well I was wrong...I took this well away from any roads.
Also discussed on the "Reflection in water hypothesis" thread (I wasn't aware of flarkey's earlier post to the same effect here):
Is the 'fence post' seen here a type of temporary 'fence pin' like this.....?

(A quick aside- I feel that Giddierone, or anyone else, deserves credit for posting and acknowledging something that contradicts an earlier "hypothesis" when new evidence comes to hand).

"Reflection In Water Hypothesis" thread:
Looking at the 22Mb image of the claimed Calvine UFO linked to by Rory (28/10/22)
I think it's likely that the first fencepost on the left- if it is part of the fence- is some type of fencing pin (sometimes called a pin stake).
6801.jpgfarmers weekly.jpg

They're often used for temporary fencing, to support wire strands where a "permanent" fence-post is missing for whatever reason, or simply to demarcate areas where work is to be done etc. (sometimes used on construction sites for the same purpose or to mark out temporary "lanes" for vehicles). Some types have insulated heads to support electrified wire.
Pin stakes (or fencing pins) come in lots of variations on the basic theme. Not at all rare.
 
Wikipedia supports a particular claim of evidence. It can be debunked with a superior claim (or claims) of evidence. It is better to use Wikipedia as a jumping off point for further research. Wikipedia is fine for Metabunk. It just may be wrong.

At the end of the day, all the arguments about fences, reflections in lakes, etc, etc, are really just a symptom of one unarguable fact. The evidence from the photo simply isn't good enough. I'm content to leave it at that.
 
The latest from Dr. David Clarke on Calvine.

The young men were excited and terrified in equal measure: this was dynamite. Had they seen a UFO? Were they going to be rich and famous? Was Earth about to be invaded?

As they chatted, a dark car pulled up outside the hotel and two mysterious figures, dressed in black suits, emerged from the back seat. They called to the two chefs by name.

'Cigarette break's over lads,' one of them barked to the rest of the group. 'In you go and mind your own business.' The pair were then led off somewhere 'for a chat'.

Two very different young men were on breakfast duty the next morning, as one of the original members of the group, retired chef Richard Grieve, tells me today.
Content from External Source
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...r-men-silence-colleague-reveals-happened.html

No proof offered to support Mr. Grieve's claim of men-in-black RN types putting the fear of God into the two young chefs/photographers. It's also unfortunate he can't "remember the exact names of his colleagues."

There are some interesting tidbits in the article, however. For example, did the RN types tell the chefs they'd seen an American craft as Dr Clarke seems to infer? If so, that (conveniently) supports Dr Clarke's claims of a couple years back of an advanced US craft.
 
Last edited:
No proof offered to support Mr. Grieve's claim of men-in-black RN types putting the fear of God into the two young chefs/photographers. It's also unfortunate he can't "remember the exact names of his colleagues."
His account sounds altogether too "movie-script" for me to take it seriously.
 
As they chatted, a dark car pulled up outside the hotel and two mysterious figures, dressed in black suits, emerged from the back seat. They called to the two chefs by name.

'Cigarette break's over lads,' one of them barked to the rest of the group. 'In you go and mind your own business.' The pair were then led off somewhere 'for a chat'.
I wonder what was 'mysterious' about the two figures? Did they have three eyes?

But seriously, in the relevant time and place (the 1990s in Scotland), I doubt that a group of workers would be so deferential as to instantly obey orders from strangers with no uniform and no apparent authority, especially if the strangers were English . This was an age of mass strikes and civil disobedience. A more likely reaction from the workers would be (imagine a Scottish accent): 'Who the f*** are ye, pal?'
 
His account sounds altogether too "movie-script" for me to take it seriously.
I agree. As told here, the whole story sounds contrived. I'd like to hear the full interview Dr. Clarke did with Mr. Grieve, or at least see a transcript of it. Reading just bits and pieces of that interview without context, particularly intertwined with Dr Clarke's commentary, gives little to digest/research/investigate.

The article mentions the name of the hotel (Fisher's) where Mr Grieve and the two photographers were alleged to have worked. I don't recall seeing the hotel's name previously. Anyone remember it having been identified before?
 
I agree. As told here, the whole story sounds contrived. I'd like to hear the full interview Dr. Clarke did with Mr. Grieve, or at least see a transcript of it. Reading just bits and pieces of that interview without context, particularly intertwined with Dr Clarke's commentary, gives little to digest/research/investigate.

The article mentions the name of the hotel (Fisher's) where Mr Grieve and the two photographers were alleged to have worked. I don't recall seeing the hotel's name previously. Anyone remember it having been identified before?
I think it was the Pitlochry hydro hotel, trying to find the source.

Edit: Source: https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/local-news/identity-flying-object-snapper-still-29427978
It was reported that the person who took the photo was a young Glaswegian called Kevin Russell, who was working as a porter at the Pitlochry Hydro Hotel at the time.
Content from External Source
 
Last edited:
The article mentions the name of the hotel (Fisher's) where Mr Grieve and the two photographers were alleged to have worked.
I think it was the Pitlochry hydro hotel

Yeah, wasn't the Pitlochry the name that had been floating around the whole time? And it's been a while now that the name Kevin Randell EDIT: (should be Russel, my bad) has been public, and the only new information is a Hollywood sounding MiB encounter being recalled by a guy at a different hotel 34 years latter? Clark has really baffled me with this whole story as he's usually pretty rational. He tore apart the Rendlesham story.

He seems to have gone all in with his photographers claim that the photo could not have been faked, which is not true at all, and convinced himself that an as yet unclassified secret US aircraft was photographed floating over Scotland 30+ years ago. And that NO ONE seems to know who this Kevin Randell EDIT: (again, Russell) is that worked at the Pitlochry (or now Fisher's) hotel with his buddy. It sounds like a rather common UK name, nevertheless, one would think somebody could have tracked him down or at least identified him by now.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, wasn't the Pitlochry the name that had been floating around the whole time? And it's been a while now that the name Kevin Randell has been public, and the only new information is a Hollywood sounding MiB encounter being recalled by a guy at a different hotel 34 years latter? Clark has really baffled me with this whole story as he's usually pretty rational. He tore apart the Rendlesham story.
(At least) one of these two sources must be wrong, both the hotel (Pitochry vs. Fisher's) and position (porter vs. chef) differ. And while there are possible explanations for such differences (hotel changed owners/names, young apprentice chefs required to pitch in where needed at hotel etc.,) I have serious doubts that's the case until proven otherwise. Somebody (or both somebodies) has to be wrong. If it's Mr Grieve, it almost has to be a hoax.

As for Dr Clarke, I agree with you the guy is usually rational and fairly thorough. So I would think he vetted Mr Grieve's story to the extent possible, including that he lived in the area in 1990 and that he was employed as a chef by "Fisher's" at the time. I'd also hope he got as much information as he could from Mr Grieve about the names/identifies of not just the two chefs/photographers, but everyone who he claims was in the ad hoc meeting of chefs/kitchen staff the night they were approached by the authorities. Hopefully he didn't just take Mr Grieve's claim that he didn't "remember the exact names of his colleagues" at face value and move on. Again, I'd love to hear that interview.
He seems to have gone all in with his photographers claim that the photo could not have been faked, which is not true at all, and convinced himself that an as yet unclassified secret US aircraft was photographed floating over Scotland 30+ years ago. And that NO ONE seems to know who this Kevin Randell is that worked at the Pitlochry (or now Fisher's) hotel with his buddy. It sounds like a rather common UK name, nevertheless, one would think somebody could have tracked him down or at least identified him by now.
Sounds to me like he's got a good candidate, but that Kevin Russell denies any involvement. Besides, we still don't know the name on the back of that photo is the name of the photographer. It may have been the name he gave Mr Lindsey and/or the newspaper, but I don't know that either asked for/saw his identification. Giving a false name in such circumstances could support a scenario involving either a prankster or a scared young man.
 
It sounds like a rather common UK name
I think the spelling 'Randall' is more common, but 'Randell' does exist. By an odd coincidence, when I Googled 'Kevin Randell' the first result was actually for Kevin D. Randle, an American UFOlogist!

[Sorry, I see that the name should be 'Russell'. I was taking 'Randell' from #1,145 above.]
 
[Sorry, I see that the name should be 'Russell'. I was taking 'Randell' from #1,145 above.]

My fault, I mixed it up with Kevin Randell the Roswell/UFO proponent that you found, I guess. Corrected it now. I would think the same logic still applies, someone should have been able to find a Kevin Russell that worked in one of these hotels in the '90s. I certainly don't remember everyone I worked with in the early '90s, but I remember some, and some of them remember others and so on.
 
The latest from Dr. David Clarke on Calvine.

Just read it, and I gotta say it seems overly melodramatic. Maybe it's the editors at the paper, but it's Clark's name on the byline. Without getting into too much, here's what jumped off the page to me.

First, is that there are very few quotes attributed to Grieve. For example the run up the MiBs visiting the hotel is just told as fact and/or story, but not as a directly quoted recollection. The only quote is for one of the MiBs, which would mean it's a quote from Grieve's recalling what the MiB said:


Luckily, they'd had a camera with them and managed to capture some images as they cowered in the bushes. They'd taken these to the Daily Record, Scotland's largest circulation newspaper.

The young men were excited and terrified in equal measure: this was dynamite. Had they seen a UFO? Were they going to be rich and famous? Was Earth about to be invaded?

As they chatted, a dark car pulled up outside the hotel and two mysterious figures, dressed in black suits, emerged from the back seat. They called to the two chefs by name.

'Cigarette break's over lads,' one of them barked to the rest of the group. 'In you go and mind your own business.' The pair were then led off somewhere 'for a chat'.
Content from External Source
If the MiBs were going to harass the lads, why do it front of the whole crew? Why be seen by the other workers basically announcing the fact that the lads had actually seen something they should not have? Doesn't make sense.

Then we get some possible actual quoted phrases from Grieve with one being about the MiBs being from the Royal Navy (bold by me):


The pair were 'visibly shaken' by whatever was said to them, he remembers, though they refused to divulge specifics, saying only that the men 'were from the Royal Navy'.

'Not long after that it all went a bit hush-hush and they started talking about being followed around Pitlochry.

'Their demeanour changed. They stopped showing up for work, went off the rails and one began drinking heavily. He was sacked soon afterwards.

'The other, who was usually outgoing and larger than life, became introverted and sullen. Within a few months of the visit from the men in the car, they both left the hotel. I haven't seen them since.
Content from External Source
The above passage also included that standard personality changes that happen to the unfortunate witnesses in UFO cases after the MiBs come to visit.

More importantly is Grieve's next possible quote (bold by me):


Whatever it was they knew, they were not meant to see it. They never really talked about it but one of them said: 'It was the Americans.'
Content from External Source
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...r-men-silence-colleague-reveals-happened.html

How would Grieve or the lads know it was "the Americans"? Did this super-secret, to this day, aircraft have USAF plastered all over it? Along with some Stars & Stripes. Not likely. Did the MiBs from the Royal Navy inform the lads:

"Oh, by the way, this photograph that were now harassing you about and is going to cause one of you to become an alcoholic and the other to suffer a personality shift and force you into hiding for the rest of your life, it's not her majesty's fault. It was the Americans."

It's nonsensical that anyone involved would have told the kids it was an American aircraft. IF the story was even partly true and they did manage a photo of a classified aircraft AND the Royal Navy sent MiB's to threaten and follow them, it's a good chance the MiBs never would have known exactly what was photographed. Again, it's still secret today according to the story.

The Royal Navy security or intell officers charged with hushing up the kids, likely would not have a "need to know" what was photographed and certainly would not explain it to the kids as part of the threat.

The whole story sounds like a 34 year confabulation from a 22 year old cook at best, to an outright fraud at worst.
 
But seriously, in the relevant time and place (the 1990s in Scotland), I doubt that a group of workers would be so deferential as to instantly obey orders from strangers with no uniform and no apparent authority, especially if the strangers were English .
Yeah I agree as Ann saiz it sounds more like something he made up due to how he expects it goes according to the film tropes he's seen.
Whilst I have no doubts the CIA does 'disappear' people overseas, now if this guy was so scared the best thing he could of done is go public with everything, see Julian Assange and how difficult its been for the USA government trying to get him deported from the UK to face trial in the US.
Why was this top secret craft doing in Scotland (near the border to England IIRC). Surely there's a more sparsely populated place in the USA called Alaska available.

Actually related and not to sound too much like a conspiracist but it wouldn't surprise me if the US does test a lot of their real top secret craft in Alaska and not in Area 51. Sure the weather ain't as great but provided of course the Inter-dimension Bigfeet allow you, You do have the advantage of not having a city of 2 million situated ~100km away. Not to mention the hills aren't surrounded with UFO hunters with binoculars trained on your top secret base.
https://outdoors.com/tikaboo-peak/

Tikaboo Peak: The Only Legal Way to See Area 51​

Content from External Source
EDIT: - If you don't like the cold then what about all the Pacific Island bases the US has, if you really want it away from prying eyes, Area 51 Just doesn't really make sense WRT flying saucers in absolute secrecy
 
Last edited:
I understand they were a couple of English lads who had come up to work, but I think that would change the accent but not the attitude.
I was thinking mainly of the other workers on the site, who allegedly had just been 'barked at' and told 'in you go and mind your own business'. Even if they didn't respond to that with a Glasgow kiss (look it up if you need to!) it would hardly be the way to keep them quiet about the event. Quite the opposite, I would have thought. Though it is not impossible that low-level operatives from the Ministry of Defence Police (or whichever agency it was) would be dumb enough to throw their weight around in that way.
 
it would hardly be the way to keep them quiet about the event. Quite the opposite, I would have thought. Though it is not impossible that low-level operatives from the Ministry of Defence Police (or whichever agency it was) would be dumb enough to throw their weight around in that way.
And to be fair, irked workers might well have groused about it down at the pub later on, and that was the end of it. We would not necessarily know about it now.
 
Though it is not impossible that low-level operatives from the Ministry of Defence Police (or whichever agency it was) would be dumb enough to throw their weight around in that way.

Yeah, and even if that were the case, would a couple of low level Royal Navy MPs be filled in on what the kids photographed? "Remember you low level thugs, when you go to threaten these kids, be sure to inform them that it was a super-secret US aircraft they saw and photographed so if they see it again, don't take pictures. And it's a good thing you low-level thugs have the appropriate clearance to know about that secret US aircraft."

Read it again and the story just becomes more farcical. It's just a blending of every UFO/MiB cliches from the last 50 years, except a secret US aircraft is the UFO. It's more plausible than an alien and there are some precedents for it, but I don't think so in this case.

The case for an aircraft seems to be that a still classified secret aircraft that appears to use anti-gravity was floating along in rural but public Scotland for some reason in the daylight with an escort of RAF planes. And this was somehow related to the Gulf war.

The case also relies on the idea that people at the MoD took the photos seriously. Yes, they looked at them and there was a file about them, but is there anything saying the MoD thought these real photos of a real secret aircraft? We've seen in the last few years how politicians here in the states can stir up old or dubious cases and demand people in government answer for these things or study them or report back or whatever. Just because someone in Parliament asked about these photos, doesn't meant the MoD thought they showed a US secret craft.

Lastly is the claim that the photo was not "manipulated" and therefore not a hoax. We've shown that a similar photo can be created in camera fairly easily with no manipulation or double exposure needed.

A simple hoax just answers so many questions.
 
Actually related and not to sound too much like a conspiracist but it wouldn't surprise me if the US does test a lot of their real top secret craft in Alaska and not in Area 51. Sure the weather ain't as great but provided of course the Inter-dimension Bigfeet allow you, You do have the advantage of not having a city of 2 million situated ~100km away. Not to mention the hills aren't surrounded with UFO hunters with binoculars trained on your top secret base.
It would surprise me, because the US military isn't bothered by the things that you cite. Proximity to Las Vegas is a positive (somewhere for the families of the workforce to live) outweigh the negatives (occasional blurry photo of a developmental aircraft).
 
Actually, Calvine is near the geometric centre of Scotland; not exactly remote, but not densely populated either.
Whoops looked up, you are correct, I was wrong. I misremembered it wrongly.
Funnily enuf when I type Calvine into the browser map, the pictures of what's in the neighbourhood are of the UFO, the one on the left doesn't exist I think though, artistic license perhaps


calvine.jpg
 
I'm a native Scot, but that was a long time ago and I've led a sheltered life, so I DID have to look it up! :D
Unshelter yourself:
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gt_YvuDcAU

(As per PGs, vid is John Petrucci, of Dream Theater, and Liquid Tension Experiment, performing a version his guitar instrumentatl /Glasgow Kiss/, but prefixing it with a brief explanation of the name, and how he came to learn it. Trigger warning: he plays a bum note at 2:34. Those still believing John Petrucci is God are invited to mute it at that point.)
 
Back
Top