May have been posted before but an interesting read of a substack from a person called 'Andrew Robertson'.
August is not really the time for inversion weather, though. And supposedly it was evening, what makes thick fog even less likely, doesn't it?
If we are assuming a hoax, there is no reason to believe the supposed date of capture is accurate, essentially the photo could of been taken at any time/place.The weather map for August 4 pretty well rules out an inversion, I would say. You'd generally need still high pressure conditions, but there was quite a trough to the north of Scotland.
He back tracks on some of this report in the YouTube interview. It's in the main page, I'll go look for it in a bit. In the report he makes a big deal about the photo being originally taken with Ilford XP, a specialized B&W film for B&W photography enthusiast that could be developed at a local photo shop with their color developing equipment. By the '90s color photography was so popular that getting B&W film developed was difficult or a home brew job. Ilford XP fixed this by being able to be developed in the common color equipment.
Robinson makes much of the fine grain in the photograph claiming it was shot on XP, but the print was made on Kodak color paper. Thus, the slight hue we see. HOWEVER, in the YouTube interview he backtracks and says the grain wasn't nearly as fine as he first thought and it was shot on plain B&W film stock, not Ilford XP. So, I take what he says in his report with a grain or two of salt. He changed his mind.
In addition, we have 3 pieces of primary evidence from the time: the photo, the handwritten notes from the MoD and the summery from the MoD. The photo is B&W printed on color paper. But both MoD documents state there were 6 COLOR negatives/photos, so we have a discrepancy.
IF Linsday's account is reasonably accurate, he says this print was made for him by the Daily Mail from the negatives they had in their possession at the time. And we know that the newspaper published both color and B&W photos at the time.
I have suggested that it's likely the Daily Mail's photo department made copies of the original in both color and B&W for possible publication. When Linsday requested a copy, they gave him a B&W one made from the original color negatives. It seems likely the paper would have made B&W copies, and it reconciles the photo with the MoD documents.
We are looking at a photo of a photo. It is a B&W copy made from a color original. As such, much of Robinson's claims about the grain patterns and such don't mean much in reference to the original. Not only does he rule out a reflection, but he also rules out any manipulation due to the grain patterns. If this is already a photo of a photo, it's hard to say the original isn't also a photo of a photo, or a composited image.
Exploring another way to get a the weak color cast on that photo in question:
Going back to the use of a B&W negative to make a print on color paper...
If another type of B&W film was used, Panatomic-X would be a good candidate because it was fine-grained.
But color negatives have an orange masking layer and B&W negatives don't. Even Ilford XP-2 lacks that orange masking layer. Color papers are designed to work with the orange-masked color negatives (to compensate for quirks in the dyes used in the film emulsion). Without the mask, the color paper's emulsion layers would respond weirdly to the grayscale tones.
Color paper is a finicky and sensitive creature. Without that masking layer and without color information you'd easily get a color cast as the different layers react in unpredictable ways. Complicating this is the contrast mismatches you'd get by using a high contrast film like Panatomic-X.
For anyone who hasn't done it: When you handmake a color print with an enlarger (not with a machine), to correct color casts you use different color filters to make separate exposures. It can get maddingly complicated, because you also have contrast filters and exposure times to consider. Without the things I mentioned above, it would be quite a challenge and would take a lot of educated guesses and experiments (test strips).
I would think that the machines used by drug stores and 1 hour services to make B&W prints on color paper with Ilford XP-2 negatives would have had preset programs for making prints with Ilford XP-2 to avoid a color cast. Something that would have been worked out by specialists with the time and resources to do so. Maybe as simple as a special filter.
Someone, like a darkroom technician at a newspaper, trying to use an Ilford XP-2 or Panatomic-X negative to make a print with an enlarger would almost inevitably produce a print with a color cast. The kind of color cast we see in the print in that guy's hand.
It remains a question as to why you would do that, as printing an Ilford XP-2 negative on B&W paper wouldn't present any big challenge. Maybe a contrast mismatch... but that's a piece of cake.
I don't know if any of these specialist machines could be used to make a print this large. If the machine was off by a bit, it could produce a print with a color cast. Maybe that's the most likely scenario.
If the Daily Record made a B&W copy from the original color negatives for their own purposes and Linsday's, then its exactly that, a copy. Mr. Wolf can better explain here as I only did B&W darkroom work back in the day. But in our discussion of the Costa Rica UFO photo, it seems that as a negative will produce a positive and visa versa, there are a few ways to get a B&W photo from a color negative.
In one case, the color negative is laid onto B&W film stock and light is shined on it creating a contact positive on the B&W film stock. That contact positive, possibly called a "diapositive" is then laid onto B&W film stock again, the process is repeated and one now has a B&W negative. The B&W negative is then used to create a print.
In this case we're taking Robinson's word that this is indeed RC paper, there are no labels identifying it as such. He says the RC paper was used in time sensitive situations, so it would make sense that the newspaper the Daily Record would use it. He also argues that a few spots on the print are the result of dirt of defects that allow us to see that this was color print paper:
So why is THE original photo that Craig Lindsay is holding in the Guardian article a colour photo ?
pink sunset ( it was 9pm in early August ),
Why is the black and white photo at the head of the Guardian article clearly NOT the same ( allegedly colourised ) photo that Craig Lindsay is holding in the photo of him holding it ?
Might the color of the lights in the room impart a color cast as well?It's hard to judge this print, being as it's a casual photo of a photo. Is this just a blue or cyan toned print? The kind you might get if you chose to print a B&W negative on color paper? Or a faded, full color print? Impossible to tell.
The scanning details:
Maybe... and all sorts of other things too.Might the color of the lights in the room impart a color cast as well?
It all raises a number of questions:
It's a bit perplexing. There seems to be contradictory evidence concerning how the original photo was generated.
- Is there a slight hue in the original that shows up in a photo of the photo like for the Guardian, but is just a phantom bit of color inherent in the paper, that is rendered out when a high-resolution scan is made?
- If Robinson believed the photo was B&W, is there a setting on the Epson A3 scanner for B&W images? If so, would a faded color photo be rendered as B&W?
- Is it a badly faded color photo? If so, would the basic image remain, just as a faded or nearly B&W version?
Here's a larger view of that photo, and it is obvious that the photo edges are much yellowed over time when you compare them with the white of the papers in front of him. Colors change. Additionally, this is a photo (probably digital) of a photo, and we don't know what color manipulation has been done on that, either by the camera or in pre-print processing. I think trying to make sense of a faint tint of color you might see now is futile.So why is THE original photo that Craig Lindsay is holding in the Guardian article a colour photo ? I have extracted that photo from the article and enlarged it...and it is colour....
Additionally, this is a photo (probably digital) of a photo, and we don't know what color manipulation has been done on that, either by the camera or in pre-print processing. I think trying to make sense of a faint tint of color you might see now is futile.
I'm not convinced. Where do you see a pink horizon? And the blue "sky" doesn't really look like a sky at sunset. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I think we should be cautious when interpreting a low-resolution image.According to Dr David Clarke it is THE original print from the negatives that is in the photo of Craig Lindsey holding the pic. Why would manipulation just 'happen' to make the sky blue and the sunset area pink and even the foliage green ? 'Yellowing' of the photo would not do that . In fact all that turning up the saturation does is highlight that the paper background IS yellowed....and the sky is blue and the sunset is pink. I see no indication that anything else in the photo is off-colour...with Lindsey's skin tone etc being just fine. Yet even without any increase of colour saturation there is distinct blue in the sky and pink near the horizon. I mean...no amount of increasing saturation in the B&W image generates any colour at all, yet in the photo Lindsey is holding the faint colour is definitely there.....and only a little saturation increase brings it out very clearly....
What's more, given that it wasn't a totally overcast day...I'd expect to see blue sky and sunset colours in a colour photo of the event !
View attachment 77545
According to Dr David Clarke it is THE original print from the negatives that is in the photo of Craig Lindsey holding the pic.
we should be cautious when interpreting a low-resolution image.
I'm not convinced. Where do you see a pink horizon? And the blue "sky" doesn't really look like a sky at sunset.
I just don't see that. When compared side by side, they look pretty much the same. We must also keep in mind that it's hard to draw any definite conclusions from the low-quality image of Lindsay holding the picture.Well the irony is that a blow up of the small colour version Lindsey is holding actually has more detail in the foliage in the upper left than the official B&W photo.
But can we really see this "massive difference in contrast" in the digital picture? Before adjusting the contrast and playing around with the settings, the digital file looks pretty much the same as the photo Lindsay is holding.Also, where is that massive difference in contrast between lower right and upper left....that is in the 'official' photo but is NOT in the photo Lindsey is holding ?
Personally, I can't see this. I haven't had time to analyze the colors today, but I quickly opened the image in my photo editor and found no traces of pink—mainly shades of gray with a hint of blue.There is blue and pink throughout the sky....but pink especially at bottom right.
Great summary. Personally, I think it's a result of white balance or color editing. That would at least explain the blue tint in the white and gray areas.I don't know what the answer is. It's a conundrum.
We also know nothing about the lighting conditions when the portrait was taken or what edits were made to enhance the image.
But again, why would the lighting conditions make the sky blue, the clouds pink, and the foliage green, in the photo the guy is holding ? In the 'original' the foliage is definitively black. In the photo the guy is holding, it has a very distinct greenish hue....
How does any lighting aberration know what colour stuff 'ought' to be and just happen to get it right ?
View attachment 77558
Let's say the original image looked something like the one at the top below—where Lindsay's face appears a bit too orange, and the walls have a slightly unpleasant tint. Adjusting the settings just so slightly could result in a picture similar to the one published on The Guardian's website.
But that's the thing—the photo was probably taken by Clarke, without professional studio lighting or anything like that. I'm definitely not a professional photographer, but I regularly adjust my photos just to make them look a bit better. Without professional equipment, it's nearly impossible to get the colors exactly right in a photo. So, it wouldn't be surprising if Clarke (or someone helping him with the website) made some adjustments. Again, I'm not saying you're wrong—it could be a color photograph. But I don't see any proof of that, since the apparent color can be easily explained by editing.Except we have no evidence the Guardian actually took the photo....as it is actually 'Copyright David Clarke 2022' . In fact the Guardian article even says 'Photograph Dr David Clarke' when you click on it....and the photo on Dr David Clarke's own website is identical. I would have thought the last thing Clarke would want to be accused of was manipulating a photo in any way. Even a photo of a photo.
Just as an example -- there could be something red or orange reflecting light from camera right, clipping that edge of the pic. Not saying that there IS, just that light being reflected from various objects would be tinted by the color of the object doing the reflection.But again, why would the lighting conditions make the sky blue, the clouds pink, and the foliage green, in the photo the guy is holding ? In the 'original' the foliage is definitively black. In the photo the guy is holding, it has a very distinct greenish hue....
Not sure that it does. If the pink were capturing sunset colors, I'd not expect the curved dividing line between the tinted bit and the non-pink bit to look like it does:How does any lighting aberration know what colour stuff 'ought' to be and just happen to get it right ?
I would have thought the last thing Clarke would want to be accused of was manipulating a photo in any way. Even a photo of a photo.
Very much agree, but am curious how best to replicate it.there's nothing here.
Source: https://nickpope.net/wpte19/the-calvine-ufo/External Quote:In August 2022 an image (the one below this paragraph) that some claim to be one of the original photos was published in the media, having been passed to several civilian ufologists by a retired Royal Air Force press officer, Craig Lindsay. Neither the MoD nor Nick Pope has commented on the provenance of the Craig Lindsay image, and Nick Pope has neither confirmed nor denied that it's one of the originals that he had access to at the MoD.
That's the thing. We've seen it several times before: *"Yeah, this photo isn't the definitive proof, but we have several more. Sadly, we can't show them to you, but..."*The tantalizing implication being that maybe, just maybe, there's actually 6 completely different photos out there which are the real Calvine photos and these thousands of Metabunk posts have all been for naught...
Wells, this is actually the b/w digital picture.Just as an example -- there could be something red or orange reflecting light from camera right, clipping that edge of the pic. Not saying that there IS, just that light being reflected from various objects would be tinted by the color of the object doing the reflection.
Not sure that it does. If the pink were capturing sunset colors, I'd not expect the curved dividing line between the tinted bit and the non-pink bit to look like it does:
View attachment 77568
That looks, to me, more like something associated with the corner of the picture as framed by the camera, (degradation due to fading or something) than something intrinsic in the scene in the real world.
I'm also not convinced we're seeing green in the leaves as much as the yellow we are seeing elsewhere in the image.
As a final point, I zoomed in on one of the fence posts:
View attachment 77569
It looks to me to be greener than the leaves, along the right edge, and to show some of the pink tinge of the "sunset" on the left side, the side facing away from where the sunset pink would be coming from.
Based on all that, I don't think the colors in this pic have anything at all to do with the colors visible in the real world the day the picture was taken.
Not sure that it does. If the pink were capturing sunset colors, I'd not expect the curved dividing line between the tinted bit and the non-pink bit to look like it does:
![]()
That looks, to me, more like something associated with the corner of the picture as framed by the camera, (degradation due to fading or something) than something intrinsic in the scene in the real world.
Sure, the British military couldn't make sense of the Calvine image back then, but let's not forget, they also managed to identify a blurry black dot as a Harrier jet.
The tantalizing implication being that maybe, just maybe, there's actually 6 completely different photos out there which are the real Calvine photos and these thousands of Metabunk posts have all been for naught...
...and qualified as "barely visible", so who knows.Plus, a second aircraft was seen, described as "probably a Harrier".
The story just keeps going because of professional obfuscators like Nick Pope, who writes (oddly referencing himself in the third person) to cast doubt/fail to confirm the photo being related to the witness report:
External Quote:
In August 2022 an image (the one below this paragraph) that some claim to be one of the original photos was published in the media, having been passed to several civilian ufologists by a retired Royal Air Force press officer, Craig Lindsay. Neither the MoD nor Nick Pope has commented on the provenance of the Craig Lindsay image, and Nick Pope has neither confirmed nor denied that it's one of the originals that he had access to at the MoD.
Source: https://nickpope.net/wpte19/the-calvine-ufo/
The tantalizing implication being that maybe, just maybe, there's actually 6 completely different photos out there which are the real Calvine photos and these thousands of Metabunk posts have all been for naught...
https://web.archive.org/web/20190331171512/http://www.nickpope.net/calvine-ufo-photo.htmExternal Quote:
The Calvine UFO photo is the most spectacular UFO photo ever sent to the Ministry of Defence.
I don't know if the photos or negatives will ever turn up, but I certainly hope they do. Because whatever peoples' views on UFOs, these are the photos that changed the minds of numerous skeptical civil servants, military personnel and intelligence specialists at MoD. I should know. I was one of them.
For now, we're left with a dubious story and a blurry picture that shows nothing.
Not exactly what Pope hyped. I think he just decided to let it be. It's not what he claimed, now that it has been seen, so he just moved along. Also relevant in his non-comments is anything like "What I saw and was on the wall was way better than this". I'm thinking what we see now, is very similar to what Pope saw on the wall back in the day and it's not nearly as spectacular as he suggested it was.
One aspect of the story I don't understand is how they found the UFO object convincing without any evidence from the supposed Harrier pilot. Nick says:Besides his book, Pope describes the Calvine photo, long before anyone had seen this original, as one of the best ever:
https://web.archive.org/web/20190331171512/http://www.nickpope.net/calvine-ufo-photo.htmExternal Quote:
The Calvine UFO photo is the most spectacular UFO photo ever sent to the Ministry of Defence.
I don't know if the photos or negatives will ever turn up, but I certainly hope they do. Because whatever peoples' views on UFOs, these are the photos that changed the minds of numerous skeptical civil servants, military personnel and intelligence specialists at MoD. I should know. I was one of them.
Why couldn't they identify the pilot and get at least one detailed witness report from the cockpit if it was seen? There should have been further details about the supposed mission that day too. If it was escorting, intercepting there would be radar etcDuring the sighting, a military aircraft, believed to be a Harrier, was seen, but it wasn't clear if it was escorting the craft, attempting to intercept it, or whether the pilot was ever aware of it at all.
It's a neat technique to ensure his name is found in keyword searches and makes it sound like some legal statement with some authority. He's also particularly fond of the fact that his name appears in Hansard (The official parliamentary record).Pope is referring to himself in the 3rd person
and when he says:"We're in the same secrecy league as Madonna's Sex."
Agreed. And that's obviously a problem. I have no reason to believe he's making anything up, but after more than 30 years, it's hard to say how accurate his recollection really is.A lot rests on what credence we give to Mr Lindsay's version of events, I think.
So it's said. As I remember, it's claimed that the "Harrier" moved from right to left while the "UFO" remained fixed in the exact same spot. This suggests that it's the same plane in all the pictures. If true, it makes the "model plane theory" somewhat less likely. However, I'm not sure we can be fully convinced of this without the ability to inspect all the pictures ourselves. (And that will obviously never happen.)And (I know I keep banging on about this) we know the "Harrier" was in more than 1 photo, presumably not exactly the same image in each (that would indicate a superimposed image). Plus, a second aircraft was seen, described as "probably a Harrier".
It's easy to exaggerate a memory. I don't think he purposely made up the details, but his recollection of the "poster" was probably not as accurate as he claimed.Not exactly what Pope hyped. I think he just decided to let it be. It's not what he claimed, now that it has been seen, so he just moved along.
Exactly! They looked it up and concluded that no military jets flew in the Calvine area on the evening of August 4. If that's correct, the whole story falls apart. A witness lying about when and/or where a picture was taken should definitely be a red flag.Regardless, if they couldn't even positively identify exactly which plane it was, nor who was flying it, why would it have convinced so many MOD personnel of its authenticity? This doesn't add up for me personally.