Claim: Original Calvine UFO Photo

[Charlie Wiser]

I lined up the distant peak with the UFO, same as the video above. If the UFO is that mountain, then it's taken from a different position than the photo David Clarke provided, since the peaks aren't the same shape (the mountain has a more bulbous top, among other things). The peak would look different from a different location, of course.

The angle of the camera would also be different imo since no foreground at all (immediately behind the fence, or "above" the fence in the 2D photo) is visible or even hinted at when you alter contrast. Seems unlikely the thick fog starts immediately behind the fence and continues for miles(?) without a break (other than in that once place at the peak) and without any hint of shapes in the photo when you mess with contrast.

My bigger objection is that I have never seen fog make a sharp angle (green arrow) and almost perfectly straight and symmetrical lines where it breaks into suddenly clear air.

 

[Charlie Wiser]

what shadows?

Any and all shadows (and light). They tell us the angle of the sun. In this photo I can only really see getting such information from the plane, since it has one very light wing and the rest is dark, and perhaps from the clouds.

If we assume this is a direct photo of the sky (ignoring the reflection hypothesis), do these clouds look like 20 mins before sunset? The images I've found for overcast skies near sunset are quite dramatic due to the sun catching the edges of clouds etc. - this photo is not dramatic even when contrast-adjusted. I don't think there's enough data in the image though.

 

[Rory]

If we assume this is a direct photo of the sky (ignoring the reflection hypothesis), do these clouds look like 20 mins before sunset?

Did you look at the video I posted of Edinburgh close to sunset? Or have a look for better ones?

The images I've found for overcast skies near sunset are quite dramatic due to the sun catching the edges of clouds etc. - this photo is not dramatic even when contrast-adjusted.

Looking at the colourised version, which I feel seems fairly accurate:

I wouldn't call that an "overcast sky" - and definitely not by Scottish standards.

I've seen a lot of sunsets in my life and some do just peter out, even when it seemed they wouldn't. But I guess we won't be finding pictures of those online.

Plus bear in mind it's supposedly facing southeast, so less expectation for pinks and other colours.

I think if Ann's saying it seems reasonable - if I'm assuming right that she is/was in Scotland - as well as others with knowledge of those latitudes and videos that show a similar sky then I would go with that and accept it as a perfectly common just-before-sunset vista.

 

[Charlie Wiser]

Did you look at the video I posted of Edinburgh close to sunset? Or have a look for better ones?



Looking at the colourised version, which I feel seems fairly accurate:

I wouldn't call that an "overcast sky" - and definitely not by Scottish standards.

I've seen a lot of sunsets in my life and some do just peter out, even when it seemed they wouldn't. But I guess we won't be finding pictures of those online.

Plus bear in mind it's supposedly facing southeast, so less expectation for pinks and other colours.

I think if Ann's saying it seems reasonable - if I'm assuming right that she is/was in Scotland - as well as others and videos then I would go with that.

How did you colorize it? Who decided those blue areas were blue in reality, and not another shade of grey in an overcast sky?

re. the video - I would rather see photos of the sky taken with a similar camera used for the Calvine UFO. Video cameras are great in low-light conditions (compared to a camera).

 

[deirdre]

Looking at the colourised version, which I feel seems fairly accurate:

that looks alot different than Micks high contrast

 

[Charlie Wiser]

This is cloud cover on the day in Pitlochry - it classifies 9PM as "mostly cloudy". My point about the sunset is that any clouds create a more dramatic sunset (compared to clear skies) - the clouds get highlighted, the undersides in some parts of the sky are lighter than the tops (opposite of daytime) etc. So it could give a clue to the time of day and even direction of west - but again, I'm not sure there's enough data in the photo to tell.

 

[Rory]

Here's a webcam from Linlithgow in Scotland, still streaming now:


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bl0CwHQDjCI

Sunset there was at 20.56 yesterday so 20 minutes before sunset looked like this:

This is looking northeast and the sunset was in the northwest so you get a bit of colouring on the lefthand side of the picture while the sky on the right doesn't look dissimilar to the Calvine photo (which was of course apparently facing opposite to the setting sun).

 

[deirdre]

I would rather see photos of the sky taken with a similar camera used for the Calvine UFO

https://www.eastlothiancourier.com/...otos-show-glasgow-1990s-published-first-time/

no sunsets. maybe try Flickr.
circa 1990
Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/40432472@N05/6011549320/

2016
Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/missy_jussy/25769892052/

So it could give a clue to the time of day and even direction of west

wouldn't that depend on whether the pic is upside down? or are you just trying to prove the photo as claimed is not 9pm?

 

[Robert Sheaffer]

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.

If the sky is overcast, there won't be any shadows.

 

[Robert Sheaffer]

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.

Calvine is at Lat 56d 48' N, Long 4d 03' W. From that we should expect a time of sunset around 9:15 PM daylight time on August 4.

 

[Charlie Wiser]

wouldn't that depend on whether the pic is upside down? or are you just trying to prove the photo as claimed is not 9pm?

Not trying to prove anything, just seeking evidence that the photo was taken at 9PM - because time of day seems to be something that UFO researchers are often able to discern from photos. I can't think why the photographer would lie about it, but if the photo is a hoax then anything is up for scrutiny. The lighting on the plane seems like a better option for determining anything - especially of course which way up it is, but I'm trying to keep that out of this thread since there's a separate discussion for that.

 

[Charlie Wiser]

If the sky is overcast, there won't be any shadows.

What can you determine from the plane? One wing is very light compared to the rest.

 

[Rory]

Calvine is at Lat 56d 48' N, Long 4d 03' W. From that we should expect a time of sunset around 9:15 PM daylight time on August 4.

21:22:03 apparently:

https://www.suncalc.org/#/56.7684,-3.9584,16/1990.08.04/20:59/1/0

How did you colorize it? Who decided those blue areas were blue in reality, and not another shade of grey in an overcast sky?

I found it on Twitter.

 

[Charlie Wiser]

I found it on Twitter.

Hmm.
The blue doesn't mean anything, then. Might be accurate, might not be.

 

[jackfrostvc]

The incident report notes roughly where the incident took place. It doesn't seem to match with Straun
The location noted below is the middle of no where. Locate the A9 through Pitlochry, then measure 20 miles north, and you will see what I mean

Here it is:

 

[DavidB66]

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

When did anyone ever give a valuable photo to a tabloid newspaper?

.

 

[captancourgette]

Surely the newspaper would of made copies of the 6 photos, Sounds a bit unbelievable

There were rumours that the US was testing a top secret aircraft in Scotland around 1990, Though why Scotland?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurora_(aircraft)
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2006/jun/24/freedomofinformation.usnews

In the early 1990s there were a string of supposed sightings and strange sounds over Scotland which some bewildered locals attributed to UFOs. Rumours in the press that Aurora was operating secretly out of RAF Machrihanish on the tip of Kintyre prompted Scottish MPs to ask questions in parliament.

Though 30+ years and no photo leaks leads me to believe that Aurora didn't get built

BTW: The plane in the photo looks a bit like a flying fish

 

[FatPhil]

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.

Focus blur is omnidirectional, but motion blur will only be in the direction of motion. There's no discernable difference in the blur in any particular direction, so it seems likely that focus blur is dominating motion blur.

That fits my experience - there's a lot of sky in the image, and although that's bleached, it's likely that the shutter speed would default to being quite high, so one wouldn't expect a huge amount of motion blur on a plane at that distance, but still some.
E.g. this was taken at 1/1250s, and shrunk/compressed such displays none:

However, that's just the thumbnail, the full size image image is http://fatphil.org/photos/RedArrows2021/s_img_3078.jpg , and you can clearly see how much the motion blur actually contributes. Scale that up for a slower shutter speed, and clearly there can be some.

And on another note - welcome Jud! Looooong time no see.

 

[Daves!]

did anyone saw the video from the researchers ?
they explain quite a lot :


Source: https://youtu.be/IgekUVzMSCc


also i read that the plane was called a Harrier but its a Hawker Hunter.

 

[simfly]

Interesting hoax photo found by David Clarke who re-discovered the Calvine photo
Source: https://twitter.com/shuclarke/status/1425853596881625088/photo/1

 

[BobbyM]

As has been suggested, the entire image is water/reflection.
That explains why the object is darker on one half and the shadows/dark spots on the aircraft.
If it is a Harrier, which it more than likely is, the shadows don't make sense given the harrier had a high set wing, what we are seeing it the underside.

 

[Mendel]

When did anyone ever give a valuable photo to a tabloid newspaper?

when did reputable papers ever print UFO reports?

 

[Daves!]

View from Struan Point near Calvine, Perthshire, showing the wire fence and overhanging trees.
This is the location where we believe the photograph was taken in 1990 (Image Copyright Giles Stevens 2022).

 

[flarkey]

also i read that the plane was called a Harrier but its a Hawker Hunter.

I think it could be Hunter. They were based at the nearby RAF Lossiemouth in 1990, and the A9 is a known low fly route for aircraft returing to Lossiemouth. I've tried to use a 3d model of a Hunter to show it in the same aspect as the Calvine plane. This is the best I could do.

https://sketchfab.com/3d-models/hawker-hunter-f6-ff8c9a9e9d31491bac0d08393bef4daf

Note that the 3d model of the Hunter is the single seat version. In 1990 the RAF used the two seat T6 variant as a crew trainer for the Buccanneer aircraft (source). They were both based at RAF Lossiemouth - which is about 90 miles north of Calvine.

And in Black & White with some noise and blurring

 

[BobbyM]

I think it could be Hunter. They were based at the nearby RAF Lossiemouth in 1990, and the A9 is a known low fly route for aircraft returing to Lossiemouth. I've tried to use a 3d model of a Hunter to show it in the same aspect as the Calvine plane. This is the best I could do.

https://sketchfab.com/3d-models/hawker-hunter-f6-ff8c9a9e9d31491bac0d08393bef4daf

Note that the 3d model of the Hunter is the single seat version. In 1990 the RAF used the two seat T6 variant as a crew trainer for the Buccanneer aircraft that was based at Lossiemouth.

View attachment 53506

I have issues with the shadows, the aircraft appears to be banked to the left towards the object yet the right wing is dark which doesn't make sense.
I think we are seeing the underside of the aircraft reflected in the water.
The shadows make sense that way, the aircraft is actually banking right away from the object

 

[Daves!]

the difference is very small between them. (Harriers vs Hawker Hunters ) 237 OCU at Lossiemouth had Hunters and Buckaneers at this point.

 

[Charlie Wiser]

View from Struan Point near Calvine, Perthshire, showing the wire fence and overhanging trees.
This is the location where we believe the photograph was taken in 1990 (Image Copyright Giles Stevens 2022).

I wish the photographer of this photo had gone up to that fence and attempted to replicate the angle of the shot. Seems like a missed opportunity.

 

[Charlie Wiser]

I think it could be Hunter. They were based at the nearby RAF Lossiemouth in 1990, and the A9 is a known low fly route for aircraft returing to Lossiemouth. I've tried to use a 3d model of a Hunter to show it in the same aspect as the Calvine plane. This is the best I could do.

https://sketchfab.com/3d-models/hawker-hunter-f6-ff8c9a9e9d31491bac0d08393bef4daf

Why is the left wing so washed out in the photo? There's something weird going on there imo.

 

[Rick Robson]

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

Well, given your professional background I think you as well might have some interesting perspective on this discussion, even though surprisingly nobody commented on this first post of yours on this forum.

I just think there isn't enough evidence to keep in a personal list of hypothesis the possibility of that UAP turning out to be a military drone/aircraft. Furthermore, in order to keeping that hypothesis as more plausible, you'd have to assume as failed the report of its movements, as a drone or aircraft from that time shouldn't be able to perform a long upward spring at a "high velocity" as described, let alone be hovering for at least 10 minutes.

BTW, if I recall correctly, there were confirmed reports around that time that the US military were performing test flights with the B2 Stealth Bomber in the UK airspace (don't remember the exact locations).

 

[Duke]

I think it could be Hunter. They were based at the nearby RAF Lossiemouth in 1990, and the A9 is a known low fly route for aircraft returing to Lossiemouth. I've tried to use a 3d model of a Hunter to show it in the same aspect as the Calvine plane. This is the best I could do.

https://sketchfab.com/3d-models/hawker-hunter-f6-ff8c9a9e9d31491bac0d08393bef4daf

Note that the 3d model of the Hunter is the single seat version. In 1990 the RAF used the two seat T6 variant as a crew trainer for the Buccanneer aircraft. They were both based at RAF Lossiemouth - which is about 90 miles north of Calvine.

View attachment 53506

The a/c in the photo has fascinated me since I first saw it several years ago. I believe it's a Harrier, probably a GR.3. GR.3s had only rudimentary air-to-air capability, an odd choice to send to intercept an aerial intruder that could be hostile. On the other hand, a Harrier would be a perfect a/c to send to escort a craft (of whatever origin) that flew both very slowly and hovered.

Regardless whether the a/c is a Harrier or Hunter, the MoD should have been able to easily identify the specific aircraft (and pilot/pilots) in the photo knowing the time/date/location the photo was taken from maintenance and operational records. They should be able to account for every aircraft in the operational inventory at any one time.

 

[Daves!]

I wish the photographer of this photo had gone up to that fence and attempted to replicate the angle of the shot. Seems like a missed opportunity.

https://drdavidclarke.co.uk/

he made the picture and is the one who found the press officer of MoD who had the original picture in his possession for 30 years. He went were the picture was taken and scanned the nearby area fully. Even the trees and the fence.
see the video for what they did at the location :

Source: https://youtu.be/IgekUVzMSCc

 

[Charlie Wiser]

https://drdavidclarke.co.uk/

he made the picture and is the one who found the press officer of MoD who had the original picture in his possession for 30 years. He went were the picture was taken and scanned the nearby area fully. Even the trees and the fence.
see the video for what they did at the location :

Source: https://youtu.be/IgekUVzMSCc

Yes, I know, I've watched the podcast - and I don't believe it's possible for him to know he's found the correct location based on the photo as there's almost no context. But that aside, I hope he attempts to replicate the odd angle of the shot because I can't see it working from the photos he's released.

 

[flarkey]

Regardless whether the a/c is a Harrier or Hunter, the MoD should have been able to easily identify the specific aircraft (and pilot/pilots) in the photo knowing the time/date/location the photo was taken from maintenance and operational records. They should be able to account for every aircraft in the operational inventory at any one time.

I agree that that should be able to, and I think that they can, account for every airborne aircraft at any time. The MoD has said that there wasn't a Harrier flying at 9pm on 4 August 1990. So that suggests that either 1) the MoD are wrong, or 2) The time/date of the picture stated by the witnesses is wrong. Or maybe 3) it isn't a Harrier.

 

[Mick West]

View from Struan Point near Calvine, Perthshire, showing the wire fence and overhanging trees.
This is the location where we believe the photograph was taken in 1990 (Image Copyright Giles Stevens 2022).

View attachment 53505

Same tree 32 years later?
I assume someone will go there. I'd like to see the position they contort themselves into to replicate the photo. You'd need the "skyline" in the middle of the fence.

 

[jackfrostvc]

So I assume the second plane was in one of the other negatives they saw, as I cant see it in the pic released

 

[Rory]

The incident report notes roughly where the incident took place. It doesn't seem to match with Straun

I wouldn't read too much into that, it's probably just a very rough (inaccurate) estimate. And it does say Calvine first.

When did anyone ever give a valuable photo to a tabloid newspaper?

Ha! Good question - but also a trick question. Number one, that would be painstaking to research. Number two, if I found a case you could rightly say "well it wasn't valuable then if they gave it away for free".

Surely the newspaper would have made copies of the 6 photos, Sounds a bit unbelievable

Apparently not. Though according to the story the MoD also sent the negatives back to them.

did anyone saw the video from the researchers ?

Yes, it's already been posted 3 or 4 times. Please read the thread to avoid duplications.

I think it could be Hunter. They were based at the nearby RAF Lossiemouth in 1990, and the A9 is a known low fly route for aircraft returing to Lossiemouth. I've tried to use a 3d model of a Hunter to show it in the same aspect as the Calvine plane. This is the best I could do.

It's amazing to me that anyone could rule out the plane being a Hunter and it seems the whole idea that it's a Harrier - and only a Harrier - stems from the original communique from the MoD.

Perhaps since they were looking for "defensive lines" to take they figured a good one might be to say "it's definitely this kind of plane and, whaddya know, there aren't any of them in Scotland right now."

I assume someone will go there. I'd like to see the position they contort themselves into to replicate the photo.

If I remember correctly Giles Stevens (bottom left in the video) lives very close to Calvine so this may not be so difficult.

 

[deirdre]

Same tree 32 years later?
I assume someone will go there. I'd like to see the position they contort themselves into to replicate the photo. You'd need the "skyline" in the middle of the fence.

plus his tree has the little seed balls on it. we do see them in the "bush" but im not rally seeing them on the big tree (s) unless they disappear when the leaves come out. still the big tree(s) in the ufo pic look different then [what im calling] the bush. the bush is needles shape

 

[DavidB66]

Speaking from memory, the MoD have identified the aircraft as a Harrier but said that no Harriers were flying in Scotland at the alleged time of the photo. Since the MoD would have no reason to lie about the second point, it would call into question the date of the photo. But based on the poor quality image of the aircraft, I don't know how they could be confident about the identification. Maybe it was clearer in the other photos

It is difficult to keep track of David Clarke's various discussions, and this one may already have been mentioned here or in another thread:

https://drdavidclarke.co.uk/2021/07/31/the-ufo-that-never-was-the-calvine-photographs/

What struck me most in this one is that it quotes from two very senior RAF/MoD personnel - Air Commodore Simon Baldwin, who was the UK's Air Attache in Washington when the Calvine case was discussed, and Sir Donald Spiers, 'Controller of Aircraft' at the MoD, and a former Assistant Chief Scientist [one of those again!] in the RAF. Both of these well-informed people believed that the case was a 'hoax', 'spoof', or 'prank':

When I [David Clarke] spoke to Baldwin he dismissed the theory that the object in the photograph was a Stealth aircraft. He believes the whole story is a spoof – the same word he uses in a memo sent to MoD in December that year that I obtained using the Freedom of Information Act.

Baldwin believes the story – and the photographs – were the result of an elaborate hoax that briefly fooled the intelligence services.

He says the photographs – one of which he saw – depict 'an airborne Loch Ness Monster'.

Baldwin's involvement is revealed in a series of letters he sent to London whilst Air Attache during 1992, copies of which I obtained using the Freedom of Information Act. One was addressed to Sir Donald Spiers, Controller of Aircraft at MoD, a 3-star rank at the time.

The prank explanation was confirmed by Sir Donald, a former Assistant Chief Scientist RAF. He said that he recognised the black and white image from the MoD files as the same one he saw at the time. There was, he said, 'no doubt that the photograph was a spoof,' a conclusion he claims is based upon analysis by 'our technical experts'.

Of course this goes against the theory, which David Clarke now favours, that the 'UFO' was really an experimental high-tech American craft, which for some unknown reason was flying (or hovering) over an inhabited part of Scotland in daylight. If this is correct, then Baldwin and Spiers were either 'out of the loop', or part of an elaborate cover story which was not activated until David Clarke unearthed the internal MoD documents using the FoIA.

 

[Daves!]

Nobody wonders how the plane(s) got to know the location of the object ? Are there any radarposts in the neighbourhood?

 

[Rory]

It is difficult to keep track of David Clarke's various discussions, and this one may already have been mentioned here or in another thread:

https://drdavidclarke.co.uk/2021/07/31/the-ufo-that-never-was-the-calvine-photographs/

Interesting. I hadn't seen that one.

This stood out to me:

A source in MoD's defence intelligence staff, whose identity I have chosen not to reveal, claims the object in the photograph was identified as a US experimental aircraft. He says it was operating from a RAF base in Scotland and was escorted, not shadowed, by RAF and US aircraft.

"There was nothing extraterrestrial about what was seen in Scotland," he said. "No one else other than the Americans had anything like it at the time. We were not allowed to say exactly what it was. But we knew what it was."

He claimed the US agencies 'went ballistic' when they saw the image, which he said had been captured by civilians in 'a one in a million chance'.

Does anyone really believe the US flew a top secret craft at low altitude over a populated area of Scotland - and maybe even hovered it in places for several minutes - and then went mad when they realised, against all odds, that a human with a camera had seen it?

Also notable for Nick Pope saying:

"The photos are pretty much as good as it gets. They were assessed by the defence intelligence staff as real…they were clearly visible, sharp focused, broad daylight with the Scottish countryside in the background."

Sharp focused? Countryside in the background?

And remember, he only ever saw one of them and didn't join the department until after the whole analysis was done and the photos and negatives had been returned/discarded.

I'm tending to agree with Baldwin here: "an airborne Loch Ness monster."

I'll bet it's in the Scottish psyche to attempt pranks like this.