Claim: Original Calvine UFO Photo

[Scaramanga]

At around 9pm on the evening of Saturday, 4th August 1990, two men on a hillside near Calvine, a small hamlet situated just off the main A9 road, some 35 miles north-west of Perth in Scotland, managed to take six colour photographs of a large, diamond-shaped craft in the fading summer daylight.

It is well worth adding an extra point that few ever mention. I have driven and hiked all over Scotland. Not only is the area the UFO allegedly visited ( which is right on the eastern edge of the huge Rannoch Moor ) easily visible from large parts of the A9, and from the many mountain summits nearby that hikers would have been on.....but the entire area is also well visible from the other side of Rannoch Moor some 25 miles away. And from the summits of hundreds of peaks in between.

Indeed, here is the famous view looking across the wild expanse of Rannoch Moor...with Schiehallion mountain in the centre distance. This is the view from the A82 near the 'Rannoch Moor Viewpoint'....heading up out of Glencoe. Hundreds of drivers would be passing this way in early August. Many would be photographing the amazing view looking out over Rannoch Moor. The surrounding hills and mountains would be full of hikers making their way down after a day's walk.

....and yet...not a single other person photographed or even claimed to have seen the UFO. And that's a UFO that literally hundreds of people must have seen.

Contrary to the image the UFO photo appears to portray, of an overcast day...the true weather was cloudbase 25,000 feet...falling to 15,000 feet in showers. None of these mountains are over 4000 feet. Every mountain top should have been visible....in fact conditions were really not that different to the Rannoch Moor image below...

 

[Ann K]

....and yet...not a single other person photographed or even claimed to have seen the UFO. And that's a UFO that literally hundreds of people must have seen.

That's just what you would expect ...if, for example, the UFO was a small islet in a loch, not a large craft in the sky.
Perhaps more to the point, none of the pilots who flew by reported (publicly) that they saw anything at all unusual.

Edit to add: nice photo of Rannoch moor. Just where are all those "hundreds of people", though?

 

[NorCal Dave]

Why couldn't they identify the pilot and get at least one detailed witness report from the cockpit? There should have been further details about the supposed mission that day too (escorting, intercepting).

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.

Excellent point. I guess there are a few arguments about why the guys that produced the memo claiming there was no Harrier activity in the area on that date did so:

1. MoD was mistaken.

2. They did know who the pilot was, but were ordered to say there was no Harrier activity to cover up a known alien craft encounter or a secret US aircraft.

3. The people studying the photo that produced the memo did not have the proper clearance to understand what was going on. They honestly thought there were no Harriers in that area at that time. The actual flight and pilot were, and still are, all very highly classified and known too only a select few.

4. As Clark sorta hints at, the UK MoD said there was no Harrier activity, because there were no UK Harriers involved. The Harrier(s) in the photo are US Marines Harriers escorting the secret US aircraft.

5. It's a real Harrier, but from a different date and possibly location that has been composited into the photo and is part of a hoax.

6. There were no Harriers, UK or US, because it's a model or drawing on glass and part of a hoax.

Option 1 has happened before. IIRC the Pheonix lights got going partially because at first the local military aircraft groups claimed to not be conducting operation at that time. No military aircraft means no military flares and such. It took some time before it was realized the locals were correct, but it turned out a squadron of A10s from the Mayland National Guard had come across the country to train in the desert. I know there are a few other instances of this in other cases. The first report is of no military aircraft in the area only to be incorrect upon further examination. The UK MoD is probably like any bureaucracy and things get confused. But one would assume that after 30 years, a simple mix up could have been discovered.

Options 2, 3, 4 are all versions of a conspiracy. Higher ups at the MoD knew this was an alien UFO and squashed the story. Or, as Clark suggested, it's a highly secretive and as yet unclassified US aircraft being escorted by either UK or US Harriers and everything about the flights is still classified. The big problem with any of these options is the location. As Scaramanga, our "boots on the ground" it seems, has pointed out, this isn't some remote secret test facility hidden away in Nevada. It's a popular hiking area in Scottland:

It is well worth adding an extra point that few ever mention. I have driven and hiked all over Scotland. Not only is the area the UFO allegedly visited ( which is right on the eastern edge of the huge Rannoch Moor ) easily visible from large parts of the A9, and from the many mountain summits nearby that hikers would have been on.....but the entire area is also well visible from the other side of Rannoch Moor some 25 miles away. And from the summits of hundreds of peaks in between.

Indeed, here is the famous view looking across the wild expanse of Rannoch Moor...with Schiehallion mountain in the centre distance. This is the view from the A82 near the 'Rannoch Moor Viewpoint'....heading up out of Glencoe. Hundreds of drivers would be passing this way in early August. Many would be photographing the amazing view looking out over Rannoch Moor. The surrounding hills and mountains would be full of hikers making their way down after a day's walk.

....and yet...not a single other person photographed or even claimed to have seen the UFO. And that's a UFO that literally hundreds of people must have seen.

Even if Clark's theory were correct, I've asked multiple times, what the hell is this super-secret still classified US aircraft doing farting around in Scotland? There was a suggestion that the UK had some super-duper radar equipment that the US didn't have, so the US was testing the aircraft in the UK. That makes no sense.

Even if the '80s era UK aerospace industry had managed to come up with a super radar, it likely would have been copied/bought or developed with the big players like Raytheon. Assuming a UK radar contractor had a system the US wanted to test a super-secret aircraft on, I'd imagine they would have arranged for the radar to be shipped to someplace like Nevada where holidaying hikers weren't likely to see it. EG&G was known to have operated captured Soviet radar systems in Nevada.

The other option @Duke suggested was a malfunction of some sort, resulting in this secret US aircraft ending up over Scotland, instead of out at sea. I suppose, but again the back story for this photo, that Clark seems to take as serious, clearly describes an anti-gravity craft. Something that has yet to be seen in the ensuing 30+ years. Just doesn't add up.

 

[jdog]

It is well worth adding an extra point that few ever mention. I have driven and hiked all over Scotland. Not only is the area the UFO allegedly visited ( which is right on the eastern edge of the huge Rannoch Moor ) easily visible from large parts of the A9, and from the many mountain summits nearby that hikers would have been on.....but the entire area is also well visible from the other side of Rannoch Moor some 25 miles away. And from the summits of hundreds of peaks in between.

Indeed, here is the famous view looking across the wild expanse of Rannoch Moor...with Schiehallion mountain in the centre distance. This is the view from the A82 near the 'Rannoch Moor Viewpoint'....heading up out of Glencoe. Hundreds of drivers would be passing this way in early August. Many would be photographing the amazing view looking out over Rannoch Moor. The surrounding hills and mountains would be full of hikers making their way down after a day's walk.

....and yet...not a single other person photographed or even claimed to have seen the UFO. And that's a UFO that literally hundreds of people must have seen.

Option J:

 

[Scaramanga]

Edit to add: nice photo of Rannoch moor. Just where are all those "hundreds of people", though?

All over that landscape. August is prime time for hill walkers. The summit of Schiehallion itself had over 100 people when I visited it in 2002. Several of the 'Munro' ( over 3000 feet ) mountains are nearby. Ben Dorrain has an amazing view looking far over Rannoch Moor and the Calvine area. Several Munros are just north of Calvine...in fact they are the easiest Munros of all as one starts at 1500 feet or so and always have lots of people. Those hills are swarming with people....even if you can't see them all. And the A9 is just a few miles from where the UFO was allegedly spotted and there are hundreds of cars on it in August. And walkers are often out even in rainy or overcast weather.

It is quite literally impossible that no other hill walkers saw the UFO. A craft that size hovering over Calvine area ought to have been visible to several hundred people at least.

 

[Ann K]

A craft that size hovering over Calvine area ought to have been visible to several hundred people at least.

A craft WHAT size? Hovering? Assumes facts not in evidence.

You seem to be willing to accept the story one day and reject it the next.

 

[JMartJr]

A craft WHAT size? Hovering? Assumes facts not in evidence.

You seem to be willing to accept the story one day and reject it the next.

I don't think Scaramanga's point was to support the claim, but to point out holes in it.

 

[Eburacum]

The craft appears to be large, but it may be much closer than the plane. In which case the pilot might not have been able to see it.

Especially if it were hanging from a tree or painted on a piece of glass.

 

[Scaramanga]

A craft WHAT size? Hovering? Assumes facts not in evidence.

You seem to be willing to accept the story one day and reject it the next.

"the mighty ships tore across the empty wastes of space and finally dived screaming on to the first planet they came across - which happened to be the Earth - where due to a terrible miscalculation of scale the entire battle fleet was accidentally swallowed by a small dog." ( Douglas Adams )

Hey...I'm simply quoting what the Vogons at Wikipedia say....

"In an April 2001 interview with David Clarke, Pope added that MOD analysts determined the object to be a "solid craft", at least the size of a Harrier or Hawk fighter jet." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvi...il 2001 interview,Harrier or Hawk fighter jet.

 

[Andreas]

It is quite literally impossible that no other hill walkers saw the UFO. A craft that size hovering over Calvine area ought to have been visible to several hundred people at least.

Yes, you're absolutely right. This single fact alone debunks the entire story. It is literally impossible that no one except the alleged photographer saw this huge and anomalous craft. Not just improbable—impossible.

Let's say it was a secret U.S. experimental spy plane. That would mean it had to fly across Scotland that evening. And if it had been an alien spacecraft, it must have shot straight up into deep space. Yet in the last thirty-five years, not a single person has come forward claiming to have seen it.

Analyzing the photograph can be fun, trying to figure out how it was hoaxed. But honestly, it's not even necessary—because the whole story simply couldn't have happened.

 

[John J.]

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

There must be a reasonable chance that after establishing that there were no Harriers operating in the area at that time, the air staff simply dismissed the picture as a hoax (or more formerly, "of no defence significance"). The information forwarded to the minister was just in case he was asked about it, particularly if there were a chance of it being published in a widely circulating newspaper.

@jackfrostvc usefully downloaded the relevant documents as seen in this post in the "Claim: Original Calvine UFO Photo" thread,
from The National Archives, reference DEFE 24/1940/1.

There must be a possibility that the claimed witnesses made a genuine mistake about the time or date- we have seen that before- and "...no record of Harriers operating in the area at the time at which the photographs are alleged to have been taken" leaves a lot of wriggle-room for UFO enthusiasts: What about similar(-ish) types of military jet? Were aircraft movements (e.g.) an hour before/ after "...the time at which the photographs are alleged to have been taken" checked?
It is this sort of wriggle-room, this space of uncertainty, where UFO "theories" flourish.

More prosaically, on finding that there were no Harriers in the area at the time stated by the claimed witnesses (via Mr Lindsay), MoD staff might have concluded (not unreasonably, IMHO) that in all likelihood the pictures were hoaxes, and then lost interest- "no further action", other than informing a minister so that he didn't look like an uninformed/ uncaring clot if ambushed with a question about a story in a Scottish newspaper- this was well before internet news feeds, and politicians weren't as plugged in to the news cycle/ media landscape as they are now.

"In an April 2001 interview with David Clarke, Pope added that MOD analysts determined the object to be a "solid craft", at least the size of a Harrier or Hawk fighter jet." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvi...il 2001 interview,Harrier or Hawk fighter jet.

The MOD reportedly concluded that there were no indications the images were a hoax that "this was for real, that it was a good one".

- Nick Pope's recollection of what he heard or read while at the Ministry of Defence. Same source as Scaramanga's quote above, Wikipedia Calvine UFO,

The Calvine photos were sent to the MoD, examined and advice forwarded to the minister for the air force before Nick Pope worked in the relevant department, "the UFO desk", identified as Secretariat (Air Staff) Sec (AS) 2a (Wikipedia, Nick Pope (journalist)).

The MoD files about the Calvine incident, now downloadable from the (UK) National Archives, reference DEFE 24/1940/1, do not contain anything to support Mr Pope's account (above) or description of the object.
Indeed, The National Archives press release, "UFO Desk: Closed - Last Tranche of UFO Files Released -" (2013), https://cdn.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/final-tranche-of-UFO-files-released.pdf says:

The files also show that in 2009, Defence Minister Bob Ainsworth was told that in more than 50 years "no UFO sighting reported to [MoD] has ever revealed anything to suggest an extra-terrestrial presence or military threat to the UK" (DEFE 24/2458/1). This led to their decision to close the UFO Desk and with it the UFO hotline and dedicated email address

This is at variance with Nick Pope's recollection of MoD conclusions about the Calvine photos that he shared with David Clarke in 2001. (Would add, Pope's quote sounds much more like one person's opinion than any formal UK civil service conclusion).

 

[MapperGuy]

"the mighty ships tore across the empty wastes of space and finally dived screaming on to the first planet they came across - which happened to be the Earth - where due to a terrible miscalculation of scale the entire battle fleet was accidentally swallowed by a small dog." ( Douglas Adams )

Hey...I'm simply quoting what the Vogons at Wikipedia say....

"In an April 2001 interview with David Clarke, Pope added that MOD analysts determined the object to be a "solid craft", at least the size of a Harrier or Hawk fighter jet." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvine_UFO#:~:text=In an April 2001 interview,Harrier or Hawk fighter jet.

The term "solid craft" is very vague, if the analysts had even some idea what it was they would have specified. Aircraft, lighter than air craft, kite, cloud, something specific, even if they qualified it with a "possible". To say "solid craft" would be to commit themselves to it not being fake, or a flaw in the negative or some other non-solid thing. I would suspect Mr Pope is using terms other than any he may have heard from an analyst, trying to put a more "solid" spin on his recollection.

 

[Scaramanga]

Even if Clark's theory were correct, I've asked multiple times, what the hell is this super-secret still classified US aircraft doing farting around in Scotland? There was a suggestion that the UK had some super-duper radar equipment that the US didn't have, so the US was testing the aircraft in the UK. That makes no sense.

The whole secret super-duper classified aircraft thing falls over when one considers we are talking about 35 years ago....and not a trace of any such craft has been seen since. No-one ever saw the Calvine craft again. If it was a genuine military craft I'd expect it to be on display in a museum by now, and at the very least there should be some further record of it being used in that 35 years and witnesses and so on.

 

[Andreas]

The whole secret super-duper classified aircraft thing falls over when one considers we are talking about 35 years ago....and not a trace of any such craft has been seen since. No-one ever saw the Calvine craft again. If it was a genuine military craft I'd expect it to be on display in a museum by now, and at the very least there should be some further record of it being used in that 35 years and witnesses and so on.

This is the whole point, isn't it? It simply
can't be a "secret US aircraft" because:

a) No records of such a groundbreaking craft have emerged over the last 35 years, even though other secret aircraft have been declassified and are now displayed in museums for the public to see.
b) The object bears no resemblance to anything known to fly without violating fundamental principles of aerodynamics.
c) No one reported seeing a large, strange craft over Scotland.
d) It's absolutely ridiculous to think the US would "test drive" their most secret project ever over populated areas in Europe, exposing it to literally millions of people.

For this to be a secret US aircraft, you'd have to believe that the folks at Skunk Works thought: "It's so incredibly secret that we'll keep it hidden from the public for decades—but hey, let's fly it around on a summer weekend in Scotland! And just to make sure people notice, let's surround it with roaring jets."

 

[John J.]

a) No records of such a groundbreaking craft have emerged over the last 35 years, even though other secret aircraft have been declassified and are now displayed in museums for the public to see.
b) The object bears no resemblance to anything known to fly without violating fundamental principles of aerodynamics.

Project Greenglow? 1980s, BAE Systems (formerly British Aerospace).
Might have got around principles of aerodynamics by the possibly challenging means of gravity modification.

A prototype of one of these might look a bit like the Calvine UFO from some angles (in my fevered imagination opinion).
And BAE's precursor organisations made some good stuff- practical VSTOL jets, Concorde (in concert with Aérospatiale).

By all accounts, the greenish rays under the aircraft in the illustration weren't the result of any predicted effect of a hypothetical gravity modification drive, but the result of someone pointing out the original artwork wasn't dramatic enough.

When, in the late 1980s, the aerospace engineer Dr Ron Evans went to his bosses at BAE Systems and asked if they'd let him attempt some form of gravity control, they should probably have offered him a cup of tea and a lie down.

"Project Greenglow and the battle with gravity", BBC News, 23 March 2016, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-35861334

BBC science series "Horizon" mentioned Greenglow in the 2016 (series 55 ep. 2) programme "Project Greenglow The Quest for Gravity Control".
Not available from the BBC but there's a copy on MediaFire file-sharing website here, MP4 file, 310 Mb, 59 mins 13 secs;
it's also viewable on the Daily Motion site https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x8kxfxi.

 

[Alexandria Nick]

For this to be a secret US aircraft, you'd have to believe that the folks at Skunk Works thought: "It's so incredibly secret that we'll keep it hidden from the public for decades—but hey, let's fly it around on a summer weekend in Scotland! And just to make sure people notice, let's surround it with roaring jets."

On the other hand, no one ever identified the triangular aircraft photographed over Amarillo and Wichita doing exactly this in 2014

 

[Andreas]

On the other hand, no one ever identified the triangular aircraft photographed over Amarillo and Wichita doing exactly this in 2014

I'm not sure about those pictures, but they're fundamentally different cases. When developing a long-range supersonic aircraft or UAV, at some point, you have to start flying it over larger areas. At high altitude and speed, it remains relatively hidden.

In contrast, the Calvine witness wants us to believe that a diamond-shaped craft hovered close to the ground in an area popular with hikers and near a main road. That just doesn't make sense.

I'm still convinced the Calvine photo can't show a secret military craft. Triangular and flying wing aircraft have existed since before WWII—large diamond-shaped objects defying physics have not.

 

[Minus0]

During 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. https://web.archive.org/web/20190331171512/http://www.nickpope.net/calvine-ufo-photo.htm

Assuming for the sake of argument everything else in Popes recounting is correct, how likely is it the pilot didn't see it?

The photos were then sent to the Defence Intelligence Staff (DIS) who then sent them on to imagery analysts at JARIC (Joint Air Reconnaissance Intelligence Centre). […] I asked my DIS opposite number about the image. I was told that the official assessment was that the photos were real and the craft had a diameter of around 25 metres (over 80 feet).

1. What analysis did they use during their official assessment to determine the size? Unless they had additional information it would be impossible to determine the size based on the pictures alone.
2. However, assuming their analysis was accurate, would it not mean we could know very approximately how close the Harrier jet was to the UFO craft? The harrier jet is about 14.5m, the UFO about 25m long, so given their relative size in the FOV the ufo craft is significantly closer to the jet than to the camera, correct? Therefore it's exceedingly unlikely the pilot would not have seen it.

Pope's psychology

The X-Files first aired in the UK in 1994 and I acquired the same nickname (Spooky) as Fox Mulder, for obvious reasons. Mulder famously had his "I want to believe" UFO poster on his office wall and though uncaptioned, I suppose this was my equivalent.

This clearly demonstrates not only an open mind to NHI UFOs, but a far higher probability that he would've interpreted information through that lens. It makes his initial interpretation, and subsequent recollection much less convincing in my opinion.

At one particularly surreal briefing on the UFO phenomenon my DIS opposite number indicated the photo and pointed his finger to the right: "It's not the Americans", he said, before pointing to the left and saying "and it's not the Russians". There was a pause, before he concluded "and that only leaves …" - his voice trailed off and he didn't complete the sentence, but his finger was pointing directly upwards.
Despite this sensational conclusion, MoD documents show that if the media asked, the line to take on this was to be that "no definite conclusion had been reached regarding the large diamond-shaped object".

His retelling includes a lot of dramatic flourishes, but also indicates ambiguity regarding what was actually being communicated. Given he was primed to believe in NHI I suspect he could've completely misinterpreted this event. "His finger was pointing directly upwards" it's a description of a behaviour in which the context is completely assumed. Did Pope misinterpret the finger pointing at the heavens perhaps the DIS was pointing toward himself to symbolize it was the Brits? Was the DIS suggesting it was a psyop or test? Was he indicating it was British hoaxers? Were there other things in the room, like a map or flags that Pope didn't notice was the intended target of the pointing? Who knows. It just seems like a very important statement that should have been made explicitly for pope to believe it and recount that story. That event, in which a CIS individual vaguely pointed somewhere without saying anything, is hardly proof of what they had concluded. One would expect clear and explicit communication given their relevant positions and importance of the analysis.

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.

again, he might've projected his own belief onto many others who merely saw it as casually intriguing and/or viewed him as eccentric and avoided disagreeing with him. It's also entirely possible, as others have suggested, that his colleagues were messing with him for a bit of a laugh.

The assumptions about nonverbal cues reminds me of Jake Barber explaining how he and his copilot both knew it was NHI technology. When asked if they talked about it explicitly, he recounted that they didn't need to say anything, they both just knew it. This implies that Jake and also Pope might have completely misinterpreted the unsaid implications in these critical moments.

 

[Eburacum]

The harrier jet is about 14.5m, the UFO about 25m long, so given their relative size in the FOV the ufo craft is significantly closer to the jet than to the camera, correct? Therefore it's exceedingly unlikely the pilot would not have seen it.

And if their analysis is not correct, it could be a cardboard lozenge hanging ten metres from the camera. The jet and the object do not both seem to be in the same degree of focus. We have no way of estimating the size of the object.

 

[Mauro]

The jet and the object do not both seem to be in the same degree of focus.

This has bugged me since a long time, but I can't find a reasonable explanation, nor under the hoax hypothesis nor under the reflection one. The 'jet' (whatever it really is) is the most mysterious part pf the picture imho.

 

[Ann K]

The jet and the object do not both seem to be in the same degree of focus. We have no way of estimating the size of the object.

I can't see that. I'm not sure how you'd even judge that, given the overall fuzziness of all the visible objects. But since we don't know the distance to anything, I agree that we have no way to compare sizes.

 

[Andreas]

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....

I was just in contact with David Clarke, and he confirmed that the photo seen in the picture of Lindsay is indeed the same black-and-white photograph we have as a scanned version. He stated that "the colors are indeed an illusion."

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

And if their analysis is not correct, it could be a cardboard lozenge hanging ten metres from the camera. The jet and the object do not both seem to be in the same degree of focus. We have no way of estimating the size of the object.

This has bugged me since a long time, but I can't find a reasonable explanation, nor under the hoax hypothesis nor under the reflection one. The 'jet' (whatever it really is) is the most mysterious part pf the picture imho.

I've already explained how this could be accomplished but it was pretty much ignored. I'll try again.

"Glass Masking" or "In-Camera Masking with Glass" was a very common method in commercial still photography until recently. It's not that it's just forgotten... not many people, outside of the profession, knew about it at all

This is a set up for a movie but the technique is the same.

Simplest explanation: You paint something or paste something on a plate of glass. You shoot through the glass. It alters the appearance of the photo.

It could be used to "clean up" the appearance of a place of business like a motel, removing wires and street lights, etc. It makes a better post card or advertisement.

I can't emphasize enough that this was a standard and common thing in commercial photography.

Our case: Paste or paint just two things on the glass - the UFO and the plane. You can make it look like anything. It's a controlled environment.

How do you make the UFO look as if it's up close and the plane far away? Make the UFO look in focus and the plane look out of focus. Paint it that way, or produce an out of focus print of a plane and past it on the glass.

This is a better way of producing this hoax photo than using models hanging from strings. There are no problems with visible strings and no problems with wind making the models dance around.

 

[John J.]

I'm still convinced the Calvine photo can't show a secret military craft.

If the image is authentic, which I doubt, I agree it's unlikely to be a manned aircraft or anything else of substantial size.
There's no visible indications of a ducted fan (if that's the right term) or of louvres/ outlets for jet or rocket exhaust.
I have wondered (like others before me) if the "UFO" might be a towed store of some kind, but I think this is unlikely as well:

(1) The UFO doesn't show much (if any) motion blur, and it would seem it was in the same location (presumably relative to the fence/ apparently dangling foliage) in each of the photos, although annoyingly we can't check this.

(2) If it were a real (terrestrial) item like a towed store, it would still make a striking photograph, but it's very unlikely that it could manage a rapid ascent into invisibility without much noise or some indication of exhaust (or the "tug" aircraft visibly preceding it).
So why would the claimed witnesses embellish their story? -I'm guessing they'd realise the causal- and physical- connection between a low-flying, circling jet and a towed store; so they would know from the outset that those conducting this trial (or whatever) would know what the item was; if the photographs were published the UFO story might be quickly debunked.
That is, unless the store were genuinely sensitive and the witnesses counted on this- but how would they know? And...

(3a) While the UK doesn't have the Nevada or New Mexico deserts, it does have areas for military aviation training including live-firing, and allies have often offered secure, out-of-sight training environments. As @Andreas says above (and others have mentioned) it would be strange to trial something sensitive outside of a secured area (which might also have appropriate ground facilities and monitoring gear).
(3b) If the photos did show something sensitive, the MoD could have used a D-Notice to try to prevent publication:

In the United Kingdom, D-Notices, officially known since 2015 as DSMA-Notices (Defence and Security Media Advisory Notices), are official requests to news editors not to publish or broadcast items on specified subjects for reasons of national security.

Wikipedia, D-Notice, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D-Notice
Technically advisory nowadays, but they carried real weight in the past. The National Archives material shows the MoD proposed a line of action for the relevant government minister to take if the story were published by The Daily Record (it wasn't), but no mention is made of considering a D-Notice. (Kicking myself that this hadn't occurred to me before.)

A bit of an aside, while mulling this over yet again, the National Archives file DEFE 24/1940/1 first posted here contained this, which I've always interpreted as being Craig Lindsay's "cover letter" that accompanied the photos to London (or High Wycombe, can't remember where the UFO desk was).
Is this what everyone else thinks?

If so, there's a sort-of interesting comment I'd somehow overlooked;

Large diamond shape UFO hovering for about 10 minutes before ascending vertically upwards at high speed. During sighting RAF aircraft, believed to be a Harrier made a number of low level passes for 5 to 6 minutes before dissapearing [sic] off.

Why the plane was identified as an RAF aircraft isn't said; we don't know if that description came from the claimed witnesses.
If it did, I'm surprised Lindsay didn't ask. Lindsay worked at Pitreavie Castle which coordinated some RAF/ Royal Navy activity; he would have been aware the navy operated some jets, and (probably) that aircraft from friendly nations also sometimes use the ranges in Scotland (though Calvine isn't one of them!)

The roundels (circular insignia) carried by UK military aircraft are the same across the armed services (plus BAE Systems test aircraft). And as no colours are mentioned in relation to the jet, I'm guessing that seeing insignia would be difficult anyway.

I'm wondering if Mr Lindsay had some role in shaping the narrative- unintentionally, of course. I think.

 

[Andreas]

(3a) While the UK doesn't have the Nevada or New Mexico deserts, it does have areas for military aviation training including live-firing, and allies have often offered secure, out-of-sight training environments. As @Andreas says above (and others have mentioned) it would be strange to trial something sensitive outside of a secured area (which might also have appropriate ground facilities and monitoring gear).

Yes, I'm pretty confident that if this were some kind of military object, it couldn't have been anything secret or classified. Letting it hover over a populated area for an extended time, accompanied by roaring jets, just doesn't make sense. That leaves the possibility of a non-secret craft—but that doesn't add up either. If that were the case, Lindsay would have recognized it, wouldn't he?

Of course, there's one small possibility. We have no real proof of when or where the picture was taken—time and place are purely hearsay. It could depict a military exercise at a training area or RAF base.

But in the end, I lean toward the simplest explanation: a hoax using easily attainable materials. Adding secret military craft and government cover-ups rarely makes a story more credible.

 

[Charlie Wiser]

Why don't you just put these questions to Clarke or Robinson via email / social media? They're pretty responsive to questions.

LOL you should see what Robinson wrote to me recently... It's late here but I'll summarize his weird responses in a few hours.

 

[Giddierone]

I have wondered (like others before me) if the "UFO" might be a towed store of some kind,

Do you mean a towed target of some kind? If so can you link back to a previous comment? [Edit - oh, I see it. Nevermind].

 

[NorCal Dave]

This is a better way of producing this hoax photo than using models hanging from strings. There are no problems with visible strings and no problems with wind making the models dance around.

I used a hybrid version, with a model UFO and a jet on glass. It's not that hard and allows for various placements.

Why the plane was identified as an RAF aircraft isn't said; we don't know if that description came from the claimed witnesses.

I wonder if that is just official speak for "military" aircraft. It's not a private Cessna or an Avro passenger jet and if it looks like a Harrier, it would be by default an RAF aircraft. Especially if people were unaware of the US Marines using some Harriers.

I'm wondering if Mr Lindsay had some role in shaping the narrative- unintentionally, of course. I think.

Agreed. I've always maintained that the entire story about 2 seasonal work lads from a hotel out hiking and picture taking is based entirely on 1 short phone call. Nobody ever met the "lads" or went to talk to them as far as we know. It's conceivable Lindsay didn't really know who he was talking to. I've often speculated that maybe someone from the Daily Record did in fact talk to the photographer, possibly in person, and the whole story fell apart, thus the photos were never published. Makes more sense than Clark's theory of a secret "D notice" being invoked. Something not in any of the MoD documents.

 

[Ann K]

I have wondered (like others before me) if the "UFO" might be a towed store of some kind, but I think this is unlikely as well:

Very unlikely. According to the (if I recall correctly) MoD statement, there were six photos, in which the object was stationary but the plane(s) changed positions.

 

[Mauro]

I used a hybrid version, with a model UFO and a jet on glass. It's not that hard and allows for various placements.

And it allows also to have the 'UFO' and the 'jet' on different focal planes.

 

[JMartJr]

This is a better way of producing this hoax photo than using models hanging from strings. There are no problems with visible strings and no problems with wind making the models dance around.

I agree with all that, but it is not as well known a technique, and requires more effort (setting up glass, painting believable whatever, etc.)

Our of curiosity, is there a UFO picture case where it was later admitted or debunked to be a glass painting (or cut out stuff pasted on glass?) If so, it would be interesting to compare.

 

[Minus0]

Someone else mention the idea of a radar reflector, perhaps it was in the Calvine water reflection thread? I've tried looking but couldn't find it at the moment. I believe they had referenced it in regards to an object that is commonly found on bouys and boats and therefore could be partly submerged. Apologies to the original poster for not citing them.

I wanted to explore the idea a little bit further. Although in this context, the hypothesis would be that it was a radar reflector connected to a balloon.

For example, Russia deployed them over Ukrainian last year

The Ukrainian Air Force spokesman, Colonel Yuriy Ignat, suggested that these reflector-equipped balloons are intended to wear down Ukraine's air defenses. It may be worthwhile to examine these claims made by the highest echelons of the Ukrainian Armed Forces.

The balloons are believed to have radar reflectors, which are intended to be used as a means of increasing visibility. The corner reflector is a passive device that directly reflects radio waves back toward the emission source, making it a valuable tool for calibrating radar systems.
https://www.eurasiantimes.com/russia-is-launching-balloons-with-corner-reflectors-into-ukraine/

Note in the following picture, the second radar reflector that is more oblong and made perhaps from mylar fabric? From the right vantage point it could give a similar visual look.

In addition, it appears to be used with weather balloon research.

School projects also make their own DIY versions from different materials and of different sizes

2) If it were a real (terrestrial) item like a towed store, it would still make a striking photograph, but it's very unlikely that it could manage a rapid ascent into invisibility without much noise or some indication of exhaust (or the "tug" aircraft visibly preceding it).

If it were on a balloon, especially with a fairly long rope, as it floated towards the hikers up the hill, parallax may make it appear to be hovering until it started to pass overhead with perceived acceleration up into the clouds. It would be quiet and lack apparent propulsion.

Letting it hover over a populated area for an extended time, accompanied by roaring jets, just doesn't make sense. That leaves the possibility of a non-secret craft—but that doesn't add up either. If that were the case, Lindsay would have recognized it, wouldn't he?

If the connecting line to the balloon was very long and the photographers intentionally crop the balloon out of the picture, I'm not sure if it would be recognized. If we imagine they were testing radar systems and made a bunch from mylar material it might not be a standard object shape (especially the flattened geometry).

It could explain why the pictures are so overexposed. Doing so hid the thin rope.

Very unlikely. According to the (if I recall correctly) MoD statement, there were six photos, in which the object was stationary but the plane(s) changed positions.

It's also conceivable that they were tethered to the ground and were either subsequently released intentionally to test radar at various elevations or the hovering could have been parallax as stated above.

Does anyone know if this has been done to test radars? Was there a new radar platform being developed at the time? Apologies if this has been explored in depth already.

 

[Giddierone]

RE: "No Harriers based in mainland Scotland": David Clarke's article says this:

This fact is confirmed in a 'defensive briefing' prepared by Hartop or his Head of Division for the MoD's Press Office, copied to Under Secretary of State for the RAF in September 1990 (right).

This says MoD had 'no record of Harriers operating in the location' at the time and place.

Source: https://drdavidclarke.co.uk/secret-files/the-calvine-ufo-photographs/

However, that doesn't mean that there were no Harriers in Scotland around the claimed time (4 Aug 1990) or located near the claimed location (Calvine).

There were two Royal Air Force shows that included (a single?) Harrier. One in Ayrshire, in mid-July, and one in Perth, ~50km from Calvine, 13-17 July.
Although, I'm not sure if "Harrier, Lightning and Jaguar aircrafts will also be on display" meant they were functional aircraft...
Also, was Hartop just being too precise with his answer, as It doesn't seem to rule out Harriers being in Scotland before the claimed photo date?

https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-perthshire-advertiser-etc/166607702/

 

[Andreas]

If the connecting line to the balloon was very long and the photographers intentionally crop the balloon out of the picture, I'm not sure if it would be recognized.

Sure, it's possible, but wouldn't the line have to be extremely long for the balloon (and possibly some other payload) to not be visible in the picture? And then there's still the issue of the "object" seemingly tilting toward the photographer. Something feels off, and to me, it leans more toward a simple hoax using a small model, a sheet of glass, or some other basic trick.

 

[John J.]

I wonder if that is just official speak for "military" aircraft.

I wondered about that. The thing is, that might well work for the average person in the UK, but if Lindsay wrote that, it's odd: He worked in an establishment that co-ordinated some UK maritime aviation (air force and navy); I'd guess he knew the RN operated Harriers.
But yes, it's possible "RAF aircraft" was used as a synonym for "military aircraft", bit sloppy though.

Makes more sense than Clark's theory of a secret "D notice" being invoked.

Oops- must admit I didn't know (or remember) he'd said that. Makes sense re. his (I think improbable) theory though.

 

[Andreas]

However, that doesn't mean that there were no Harriers in Scotland around the claimed time (4 Aug 1990) or located near the claimed location (Calvine).

That's a good point. And we must remember one thing: we have no idea where or when the picture was taken. If the picture is a hoax, then the backstory is also a hoax. For all we know, it could have been taken near an airbase by a photographer waiting for a jet to come in for landing.

 

[John J.]

Someone else mention the idea of a radar reflector, perhaps it was in the Calvine water reflection thread?

There was some discussion a while back, started (I think) by @NorCal Dave,
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/claim-original-calvine-ufo-photo.12571/post-280230, I scribbled some thoughts here (reflection thread); halfway through I thought to check if it had been thought of before

, and found Dave's post.

 

[John J.]

...that doesn't mean that there were no Harriers in Scotland around the claimed time (4 Aug 1990) or located near the claimed location (Calvine).

Agreed; photo of Harrier at RAF Lossiemouth (in Scotland), 12 July 1990, taken by Peter Nicholson and uploaded to Airport-Data.com website https://airport-data.com/aircraft/photo/000411282.html.
This is 24 days prior to the claimed sighting date, 04 August 1990.

Edited to add: This isn't evidence that this was the nearest date to the Calvine sighting that a Harrier visited Scotland, it just shows that an aircraft photographer was present at the time of this particular arrival. We don't know when it left!

Lossiemouth is just over 70 miles (114 km) to the NE of Calvine.

 

[NorCal Dave]

There was some discussion a while back, started (I think) by @NorCal Dave,

I did? After 1300+ posts, it's hard to remember what was said. Looking back I guess I did, but blundered by getting my (/EX) for external content in the wrong spot, so my musing on radar reflectors looks like something I was quoting. Pretty lame

 

[deirdre]

This is 24 days prior to the claimed sighting date, 04 August 1990.

and the clouds look similar too.