Claim: Original Calvine UFO Photo
- Thread starter Mick West
- Start date
Nitpick: Andrew Robinson - he's the guy who did the analysis of the original photo.
I have to say that of all the potential explanations, the idea that a mountaintop could appear not just floating in the sky while all else was perfectly hidden, but also reflected in the mist somehow, is the most ridiculous of all - even more so than a UFO! When has mist ever acted like a mirror to reflect a mountain peak?
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.
PublicStranger
Active Member
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.
NorCal Dave
Senior Member.
Some more talk of how the photo was originally generated came up on the thread dedicated to reflection theory, which seemed more appropriate to discuss here. It's a bit in the weeds, but I think it's important to try and understand exactly what this photo is if we want to know what 's in it.
To set the stage I'll quote myself and @Z.W. Wolf response from the other thread:
Talking about Robinson's report on the photo:
And Mr. Wolf's response:
So, how was this photograph created? As I noted above, one of the MoD documents say the original negatives were color while the summery is vague simply stating that there were 6:
The photo we all have been looking at as provided by Linsday to Clark does appear to be a B&W print. According to Robinson who analyzed the print, it's on Kodak Resin Coated (RC) paper used for color negative print making:
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:
https://www.docdroid.net/POxz6na/calvine-ufo-photographic-analysis-v2-pdf#page=7
So, if the Daily Record passed on color negatives to the MoD, and the print was made on paper intended for color negatives, why does it appear B&W?
In the same report above, Robinson claims the original was made with the previously discussed specialty B&W film stock, Ilford XP. But in the YouTube interview he corrects himself and suggest the original was made with a more common B&W film stock. Either way, this contradicts the MoD notes claiming color negatives.
Possible reasons:
1. The MoD notes are wrong, and the original photo was shot on some sort of B&W film stock. People of a certain generation will remember film negatives and at a quick glance the B&W vs color ones didn't look all that different. I remember B&W negatives that I produced in collage photography class (mid '80s) as gray colored whereas color negatives had a brown, sepia tone to them. But again at a quick glance of some negatives in an envelope, maybe whoever is writing the notes just assumed they were color because that's what everyone used.
That does raise the question of why the photographer used B&W film stock. The usual answer is for aesthetics, they were out shooting the landscape and wanted to generate B&W photos. Sort of Ansel Adams like, maybe they were even trying to use Adam's zone technique. If true, it would also suggest an experienced photographer that may be well versed in various manipulation techniques.
This would go along with Robinson's analysis that the originals were B&W.
2. The original photos were shot on standard color film stock and the Daily Record made a B&W print for Linsday on color paper. If the story is somewhat accurate, the photos and then the negatives showed up at the Daily Record. They in turn contacted the local RAF office where Linsday was, for a comment.
Linsday reported that the main office (London?) wanted a copy of the photo(s), so he asked the Daily Record to print one for him. They may or may not have known that he was going to fax a copy of the photo to London, he had no attachment options for email in 1990. We know the newspaper ran both color and B&W photos at the time, so their photo department would have been capable of creating either, and a B&W would work much better in an old fax machine. As such, it was the faxed version of the photo that floated around for quite a while:
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.
Maybe more simply, a color print is made using the color negatives then the print is put into a copy stand and a B&W photo is taken of the color print. A photo of a photo. As the quality need only be good enough for a daily newspaper, the loss of detail in either of these procedures would be acceptable.
One way or another, a B&W negative was created and used to make the print we see. Why on color paper is unclear. Maybe it was the only paper available or the one with a sheen (glossy, matte, luster) that was felt best worked with a fax machine.
In either case, it means what we see today would be a 2nd to 3rd generation analog copy. As such Robinson's conclusions about the grain patterns ruling out any manipulation may not be correct. We are seeing multiple layers of different grain patterns due to the copying. This would also contradict Robinson's analysis that the original was created with B&W film stock.
3. It was a color print from color negatives but has severely faded over time. Robinson notes that the RC paper was used for speed, but not for longevity, particularly in the washing and drying steps of development. IF this was intended as a quick copy to be faxed, the wash and dry steps could have been shortened even more for the sake of time. It was only intended to last long enough to be faxed and possible mailed a few days later.
I would imagine if fading were the case, the whole photo would be hard to see, not just that the color faded, but that's just a guess.
I'm sure there are problems with all the possible scenarios, but I think some sort of copying would explain the MoD notes and the generally poor quality of the current photo.
To set the stage I'll quote myself and @Z.W. Wolf response from the other thread:
Talking about Robinson's report on the photo:
And Mr. Wolf's response:
So, how was this photograph created? As I noted above, one of the MoD documents say the original negatives were color while the summery is vague simply stating that there were 6:
The photo we all have been looking at as provided by Linsday to Clark does appear to be a B&W print. According to Robinson who analyzed the print, it's on Kodak Resin Coated (RC) paper used for color negative print making:
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:
https://www.docdroid.net/POxz6na/calvine-ufo-photographic-analysis-v2-pdf#page=7
So, if the Daily Record passed on color negatives to the MoD, and the print was made on paper intended for color negatives, why does it appear B&W?
In the same report above, Robinson claims the original was made with the previously discussed specialty B&W film stock, Ilford XP. But in the YouTube interview he corrects himself and suggest the original was made with a more common B&W film stock. Either way, this contradicts the MoD notes claiming color negatives.
Possible reasons:
1. The MoD notes are wrong, and the original photo was shot on some sort of B&W film stock. People of a certain generation will remember film negatives and at a quick glance the B&W vs color ones didn't look all that different. I remember B&W negatives that I produced in collage photography class (mid '80s) as gray colored whereas color negatives had a brown, sepia tone to them. But again at a quick glance of some negatives in an envelope, maybe whoever is writing the notes just assumed they were color because that's what everyone used.
That does raise the question of why the photographer used B&W film stock. The usual answer is for aesthetics, they were out shooting the landscape and wanted to generate B&W photos. Sort of Ansel Adams like, maybe they were even trying to use Adam's zone technique. If true, it would also suggest an experienced photographer that may be well versed in various manipulation techniques.
This would go along with Robinson's analysis that the originals were B&W.
2. The original photos were shot on standard color film stock and the Daily Record made a B&W print for Linsday on color paper. If the story is somewhat accurate, the photos and then the negatives showed up at the Daily Record. They in turn contacted the local RAF office where Linsday was, for a comment.
Linsday reported that the main office (London?) wanted a copy of the photo(s), so he asked the Daily Record to print one for him. They may or may not have known that he was going to fax a copy of the photo to London, he had no attachment options for email in 1990. We know the newspaper ran both color and B&W photos at the time, so their photo department would have been capable of creating either, and a B&W would work much better in an old fax machine. As such, it was the faxed version of the photo that floated around for quite a while:
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.
Maybe more simply, a color print is made using the color negatives then the print is put into a copy stand and a B&W photo is taken of the color print. A photo of a photo. As the quality need only be good enough for a daily newspaper, the loss of detail in either of these procedures would be acceptable.
One way or another, a B&W negative was created and used to make the print we see. Why on color paper is unclear. Maybe it was the only paper available or the one with a sheen (glossy, matte, luster) that was felt best worked with a fax machine.
In either case, it means what we see today would be a 2nd to 3rd generation analog copy. As such Robinson's conclusions about the grain patterns ruling out any manipulation may not be correct. We are seeing multiple layers of different grain patterns due to the copying. This would also contradict Robinson's analysis that the original was created with B&W film stock.
3. It was a color print from color negatives but has severely faded over time. Robinson notes that the RC paper was used for speed, but not for longevity, particularly in the washing and drying steps of development. IF this was intended as a quick copy to be faxed, the wash and dry steps could have been shortened even more for the sake of time. It was only intended to last long enough to be faxed and possible mailed a few days later.
I would imagine if fading were the case, the whole photo would be hard to see, not just that the color faded, but that's just a guess.
I'm sure there are problems with all the possible scenarios, but I think some sort of copying would explain the MoD notes and the generally poor quality of the current photo.
Scaramanga
Senior Member
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....
Even the tiniest but of enhancement of saturation brings out a blue sky, pink sunset ( it was 9pm in early August ), and even a definite hint of green in the foliage...
..and this is SO much better. NO longer is the photo a very bland and overcast day as depicted in the B&W photo. It now has far more depth and is a far less overcast sunset with pink near the horizon and still some blue sky left...and I even get a hint of green in the leaves.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...mystery-behind-the-best-ufo-picture-ever-seen
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 ?
Last edited:
Z.W. Wolf
Senior Member.
But B&W resin coated paper was also in use. I was on the yearbook and newspaper staff at my High School in 1974. We started using Kodak Polycontrast RC paper for the newspaper, which was a weekly that we had to get together pretty fast. Really revolutionary new stuff at the time. It had a distinctive look to it, that I kind of liked.
By 1990, of course, it was old hat.
Last edited:
NorCal Dave
Senior Member.
The Guardian version of the photo does appear to have some hue to it, but I wouldn't call it a color photo. Unless somebody is being less than forthcoming, this is supposedly the high-resolution scan rendered as a Tiff file of the photo in Lindsay's hand, and it's not color:
The scanning details:
Honestly, I find it all a bit confusing. According to Robinson, not that I'm saying everything he says is correct, the printing on color paper will produce a slight hue:
It's a bit beyond me, as noted I only did B&W stuff in the darkroom many years ago. And Robinson changed his mind on the type of film used after this report, though he still maintains the original was shot on B&W film stock.
It all raises a number of questions:
- 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?
For me, if the photo is a hoax of some sort, I assume the story likely is too. So, the exact time and date could just be a part of the hoax as well.
As far as I know, there is only 1 photo. The photo Lindsay claims to have gotten from the Daily Record, faxed to the home office and then kept for 30+ years. The photo he is holding is supposedly the same photo Robinson studied and the same photo that was scanned and is available to study. The same photo that the scan of now has the Sheffield Hallam University writing on it.
Z.W. Wolf
Senior Member.
Fading is a definite possibility. I don't know about the color print paper in question specifically but...
In general the yellow dye layer could be the most unstable and prone to fading. Which would give the print a blue cast. Which is what I see. This print has a blue cast.
That's the earliest stage of fading. As the magenta dye fades you get a more greenish cast, then when the cyan dye (it's the most fade resistant) predominates, you get a reddish or magenta-ish cast.
That's a generic progression, assuming long term storage in a dark place, like a drawer. With occasional exposure to light. If it were chronically exposed to UV light it could be more quirky.
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.
Is the color cast uneven? Maybe I see a more reddish area in the lower right corner? Could this be an area that is more faded? Going into the last stage of fading when the cyan layer predominates?
In general the yellow dye layer could be the most unstable and prone to fading. Which would give the print a blue cast. Which is what I see. This print has a blue cast.
That's the earliest stage of fading. As the magenta dye fades you get a more greenish cast, then when the cyan dye (it's the most fade resistant) predominates, you get a reddish or magenta-ish cast.
That's a generic progression, assuming long term storage in a dark place, like a drawer. With occasional exposure to light. If it were chronically exposed to UV light it could be more quirky.
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.
Is the color cast uneven? Maybe I see a more reddish area in the lower right corner? Could this be an area that is more faded? Going into the last stage of fading when the cyan layer predominates?
Last edited:
JMartJr
Senior Member.
Might the color of the lights in the room impart a color cast as well?
NorCal Dave
Senior Member.
As with everything else, the information about the scanner is vague. It simply states an A3 Epsom scanner was used, but A3 is not a model number, but a page size. We don't know what model of Epsom scanner was used. It did produce a Tiff file so I looked up some of the more advanced scanners. For example, the Epsom 13000XL. One of the things I noted is that there is a color photo scanning mode, but for B&W, one is to use the "document" mode:
https://download4.epson.biz/sec_pub...ual.pdf?pageid=&tab=&LGW=&CNW=&OSV=&EXE=&VER=
So, could Robinson or others, have believed the photo was B&W and selected the "document mode", even if the photo was in fact a faded color photo? I'd think that if he was looking at the original with a magnifying glass and studying it, he would know if it was a faded color photo or a B&W on color paper, but I don't really know at this point.
Z.W. Wolf
Senior Member.
Maybe... and all sorts of other things too.
And now we're talking about digital photography, which I don't know all that much about.
Last edited:
Scaramanga
Senior Member
Why would the sky just randomly happen to be a little blue, and the sunset just happen to randomly be a little pink, and the foliage just randomly happen to be a little green ? It is very odd....especially as simply increasing saturation on the 'original' photo given in this thread adds no colour at all. The stark contrast is made all the more clear when the two are next to each other...I mean the 'original' has not a trace or hint of colour...
What's more, with only a minor degree of enhancement you can clearly see the colour even in the original Guardian photo that the above is taken from....
Which to me makes it pretty clear he is holding a colour photo ! AND....notice how the over-bright top left of the B&W photo..with its sheer contrast with the darker bottom right corner.....is simply not there in the photo he is holding.
EDIT : Just making at note from Stellarium that at 9pm on August 4th the sun is 2.5 degrees above the horizon in Inverness...which is the nearest main town. So that fits well with it being sunset time. And if this photo is looking south, as claimed, then one would expect ( as is in the photo ) the sunset to be to the right of the photo. Which it seemingly is.
ADDITIONAL NOTE : The original report even says that the weather on the day was NOT ( as many seem to think ) overcast down to a low level. It says Main Cloud base 25,000 feet, dropping to 15,000 during showers. That is well above the mountain tops. It is mainly high level shower clouds. Not overcast...but 'occasional showers'....so I'd actually expect some blue sky.
Last edited:
Ann K
Senior Member.
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.
Scaramanga
Senior Member
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 !
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.
NorCal Dave
Senior Member.
Correct. But also according to Dr. Clark, the photo on the right is the high-resolution scan of that same photo. The one on the right is supposedly the best digital version of the photo available. So:
- It's as Robinson described it, a print made from a B&W negative on color paper for some reason. The apparent colors are just phantom colors in the paper and possibly from the time the print sat around in a book. They are not true colors. As such, when Robinson scanned it, he set the machine to a B&W compatible mode and made a B&W scan, stripping the phantom color out of it. It's a B&W print on color paper.
- The original photo is a badly faded color print from a color negative. Clark's photography expert, Robinson, despite studying the photo up close and with magnification, is completely mistaken. He erroneously believed the faded color photo to be a B&W image on color paper and set the scanning machine to a B&W compatible mode, thus stripping what bit of color was left out of the digital scan. It's a color print on color paper.
- The digital photo of Lindsay and the Calvine photo made for The Guardian, for a number of reasons, amplifies the phantom colors in the photo making them appear more pronounced than they really are. It's a B&W print on color paper.
- The Guardian has some sort of color correction protocol for photos they publish that added more color to the photo than is really there. Either manually or some sort of automated AI system that checks and corrects colors on photos for publication added some blue to the sky and green to the trees. It's a B&W print on color paper.
- More conspiratorial, Clark and his team are well aware that the original print is a faded color photo on color paper from a color negative. For reasons unknown, they are claiming it's a B&W print on color paper and scanned it in such a way as to remove any color and prove it a B&W photo. It's a color print on color paper.
I don't know what the answer is. It's a conundrum.
Scaramanga
Senior Member
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. 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 ? I mean...to be honest the photo Lindsey is holding may be the same image....but really doesn't look anything like the 'official' B&W photo. The 'official' version is dreadfully over-exposed.
Scaramanga
Senior Member
There is blue and pink throughout the sky....but pink especially at bottom right. Which, is the photo is genuinely facing south west towards Schiehallion, is the side of the photo that the sun is setting. At 9pm the sun would have been 2.5 degrees above the horizon. I'm an avid photographer of sunsets...I have many pics with light blue sky and pink clouds around sunset time.
There is software that will tell the RGB status of any pixel. I have seen it....but forget what it was. That would resolve how much colour is actually there in the photo.
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.
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.
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.
In summary, I don't think there's proof that the photo Lindsay is holding is a color photo—it could very well be black and white, just like the raw file. We have to remember that the digital portrait of Lindsay was edited to serve as an illustration for the article, meaning the accuracy of the "UFO photo" wasn't a priority. We also know nothing about the lighting conditions when the portrait was taken or what edits were made to enhance the image.
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.
Scaramanga
Senior Member
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 ?
This is the b/w digital photo.
I spent less than ten seconds slightly increasing the saturation and vibrance and, most importantly, decreasing the warmth. The result is a noticeable greenish tone in the foliage and some pinkish areas in the background.
I guess this makes sense if the newspaper used a simple editing technique to enhance the picture for online publication. It wouldn't take dramatic changes in the color settings to create the illusion of a color photograph.
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.
Scaramanga
Senior Member
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.
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.
Giddierone
Senior Member.
Why don't you just put these questions to Clarke or Robinson via email / social media? They're pretty responsive to questions.
JMartJr
Senior Member.
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:
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:
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.
NorCal Dave
Senior Member.
But the idea that the photo Linsday is holding is an actual color photo and the digital Tiff scan of it is B&W kinda leaves purposeful deception as the only answer, right? If Clark is well aware the photo is a faded color print, then why present the world with a digital Tiff scan in B&W.
As the original can arranged to be seen (I believe) the idea that there is some phantom color in the original photo due to the color paper in addition to some sort of color correction was applied to the photo of Linsday resulting in some color on the photo makes more sense than being purposely deceptive and trying to pass off a color photo as B&W.
I disagree with Clark's ultimate conclusion about a secret aircraft and there are plenty of UFO people and sites that would have no problem being deceptive as hell, but I just don't see it in this case.
I've been fascinated by the Calvine case for a long time, genuinely thinking it was worth investigating. And when the photo was finally released, it almost seemed like there might actually be something to this story.
But as time passed, I gradually realized... nope. Not even worth looking into. Honestly, there's nothing here. We have no idea who took the picture, no proof of where or when it was taken, and—conveniently—the photographer chose to remain anonymous.
And then there's the photograph itself. Take a closer look, and what are we left with? A blurry pile of nothing. Yesterday, I was cleaning up my workshop and found a random piece of metal—a steel profile from some homemade machinery—and, honestly? It could easily be used to create an identical hoax picture.
I'm not saying that's what happened. It could be a reflection, double exposure, or any number of things. But nothing about this image suggests a strange craft hovering over the Scottish landscape. Nothing.
In a way, this is even worse than the video Coulthart released—at least he had a witness willing to go on the record. 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.
I'm not saying I'll never post about the Calvine photo again, but honestly? I don't think it's worth the effort. The picture could be anything, and the backstory can't be traced or verified. But I guess that's exactly how a true UFO story should be.
But as time passed, I gradually realized... nope. Not even worth looking into. Honestly, there's nothing here. We have no idea who took the picture, no proof of where or when it was taken, and—conveniently—the photographer chose to remain anonymous.
And then there's the photograph itself. Take a closer look, and what are we left with? A blurry pile of nothing. Yesterday, I was cleaning up my workshop and found a random piece of metal—a steel profile from some homemade machinery—and, honestly? It could easily be used to create an identical hoax picture.
In a way, this is even worse than the video Coulthart released—at least he had a witness willing to go on the record. 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.
I'm not saying I'll never post about the Calvine photo again, but honestly? I don't think it's worth the effort. The picture could be anything, and the backstory can't be traced or verified. But I guess that's exactly how a true UFO story should be.
Giddierone
Senior Member.
Very much agree, but am curious how best to replicate it.
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:
Source: https://nickpope.net/wpte19/the-calvine-ufo/External Quote:
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...
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 photo we actually have doesn't show anything that can't be replicated. It just doesn't. And the backstory is nothing but hearsay. To me, it's up to people like Pope to provide something actually worth analyzing. For now, we're left with a dubious story and a blurry picture that shows nothing.
Wells, this is actually the b/w digital picture.
Scaramanga
Senior Member
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.
Well, no, what you are seeing in the bottom right is the closer to where the sunset is...if we accept that the photo is taken in the general direction of Schiehallion ( i.e facing south-west ). I don't think it is degradation...I think it is literally the sunset itself, in the clouds.
John J.
Senior Member.
Luckily, the vu-foil made and filed with the other Calvine "UFO" material by MoD personnel, and since given to the National Archives, indicates that "our" photo probably has the same origin- a pic of the vu-foil was posted by @ParanoidSkeptic2' OP in the (defunct) Claim: 1990 Calvine UFO thread:
It's been said that the Calvine image we have is the best- but in what sense was it the best? Most in focus overall, or clearest imaging of the claimed UFO? We don't know.
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".
The people who came to those conclusions had 6 photographic negatives to look at, and (it seems likely) access to specialist photo analysis of a high standard; whether this was used we don't know. Those people also checked to see if any Harriers were flying in the area at that time, and recorded that there weren't.
I agree that the backstory is unverifiable despite efforts made to find the claimed witnesses, and an isolated claim of the (claimed) witnesses being menaced by service personnel. A lot rests on what credence we give to Mr Lindsay's version of events, I think.
Mendel
Senior Member.
...and qualified as "barely visible", so who knows.
NorCal Dave
Senior Member.
External Quote:
I forgot Pope is referring to himself in the 3rd person. I've wondered about that statement. My own thought is that the real photo is not nearly as detailed and revealing as the artist's recreation Pope had done.
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:
As Andreas sums up:
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.
His commissioned recreation:
John J.
Senior Member.
I have idly wondered if there was a blown-up Calvine picture on the wall as a joke at the new boy's (Pope's) expense;
something like:
Section chief: "We're getting a new civilian clerk tomorrow, I won't be here."
(Section deputy shrugs).
Chief: "Remember those photos from Calvine, Scotland?"
Deputy: "Um, yeah. Sort of. Why?"
Chief: "I've had Reprographics do me this...,
(unrolls Calvine picture, walks to wall opposite the appointed clerk's desk, blu tacks picture to the wall)
...just give me a day or so."
Two days later, 10:30, as per usual Wendy is pushing the tea/ coffee/ refreshments trolley through the office.
Section Chief walks in with pound coin in hand, suddenly halts in front of new boy's desk, staring at opposite wall:
"WHO THE HELL PUT THIS UP?" (tears picture from wall),
"If the Yanks hear of this there'll be trouble! Some things are NOT to be disclosed! Bloody amateurs!"
Chief slaps his coin down on Wendy's trolley, picks up an iced bun and paper cup of coffee and storms off.
New boy is deeply impressed. Wendy not so much; this is the third time she's seen something like this.
Minus0
Senior Member
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:
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 etc
It doesn't make sense so many personnel in the MOD with top secret clearance completely ignored the unidentified plane and who was flying it.
Also, as Pope claims, the craft was only there for a few minutes before accelerating at high speed. Are we to believe the other photos were taken of different aircraft flying in formation? Circling back around? Or was this the only picture with an aircraft? Or maybe the camera had rapid shutter of a single pass?
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.
Last edited:
Giddierone
Senior Member.
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).
This quote of pre-publication buzz from the Guardian (Thurs, 9 May, 1996)—during the popularity heights of The X Files—about his forthcoming book Open Skies, Closed Minds, comparing it to another blockbuster book will always tickle me:
and when he says:
"these are the photos that changed the minds of numerous skeptical civil servants, military personnel and intelligence specialists at MoD," you have to wonder where these people are after all this time (not a peep from them it seems) or whether they actually exist/ed.
Attachments
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.
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.)
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.
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.
Similar threads
