Claim: Original Calvine UFO Photo

[NorCal Dave]

Historically, government secrets have turned out to quite credible, not secret enough, or both.

Just to piggy-back on that a bit. Even if the government can keep something classified and secret out someplace like Area 51, once deployed, it's likely going to be found out.

Once the U2 was moved from Area 51 and deployed to forward operating bases, it was going to be seen, so a cover story was invented that it was a high-altitude weather research plane:

With approval from the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA)'s director Hugh Dryden, Bissell's team at the CIA developed a cover story for the U-2 that described the aircraft as used by NACA for high-altitude weather research; the cover story would be used if the aircraft were lost over hostile territory. U-2s flew some real weather-related missions, taking photographs that appeared in the press,[67]​[68]​ and sometimes had civilian government decals,[69]​ but few believed in the cover story; in May 1957 the UK's Daily Express newspaper reported the U-2 operating east of the Iron Curtain.[68]​

Even after being deployed to the UK and Turkey in 1956, the IAF wasn't to sure about it when they saw one until the 1960 shoot down confirmed it was a spy plane:

On 11 March 1959, two Israeli Super Mystère fighters were directed to intercept a U-2 detected over Israel by Israeli ground-based radar. Although the aircraft were unable to make an intercept, the formation leader, Major Yosef Alon, managed to get a good look at the aircraft. He subsequently identified it out of a book as a U-2, registered as a weather reconnaissance aircraft to the US Weather Service.

In spite of this, it was not until the 1960 shootdown of a U-2 over the Soviet Union and its subsequent public exposure as a spy plane that the Israeli government understood the identity of the mystery aircraft.[80]​[81]​[69]​

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_U-2

Even without a full cover story, the government, or at least President Johnson, publicly referred to the SR-71 in a round about way at a time when its predecessor, the secret A12, was being used and the SR71 was in development:

Johnson decided to counter this criticism by revealing the existence of the YF-12A USAF interceptor, which also served as cover for the still-secret A-12[22]​ and the USAF reconnaissance model since July 1964. USAF Chief of Staff General Curtis LeMay preferred the SR (Strategic Reconnaissance) designation and wanted the RS-71 to be named SR-71. Before the July speech, LeMay lobbied to modify Johnson's speech to read "SR-71" instead of "RS-71". The media transcript given to the press at the time still had the earlier RS-71 designation in places, creating the story that the president had misread the aircraft's designation.[23]​[N 3]​ To conceal the A-12's existence, Johnson referred only to the A-11, while revealing the existence of a high-speed, high-altitude reconnaissance aircraft.[24]​

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_SR-71_Blackbird

The A12 remained a secret CIA aircraft from 1962-1966 while it's air force derivative, the SR71 became the public:

The A-12 flew covert missions while the SR-71 flew overt missions; the latter had USAF markings and pilots carried Geneva Conventions Identification Cards.[21]​

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_SR-71_Blackbird

The F117 managed to stay more or less secret for a number of years, but was also based just outside Area 51, where it had been developed:

The first production F-117 was delivered in 1982, and its initial operating capability was achieved in October 1983. All aircraft were initially based at Tonopah Test Range Airport, Nevada.

And it's not clear how much they did there, or abroad. When one did crash, it was kept secret:

The F-117 was secret for much of the 1980s. Many news articles discussed what they called an "F-19" stealth fighter, and the Testor Corporation produced a very inaccurate scale model. When an F-117 crashed in Sequoia National Forest in July 1986, killing the pilot and starting a fire, the USAF established restricted airspace.[36]​ Armed guards prohibited entry, including firefighters, and a helicopter gunship circled the site. All F-117 debris was replaced with remains of a F-101A Voodoo crash stored at Area 51.

But once it got deployed more, it was acknowledged:

On 10 November 1988, the F-117 was publicly acknowledged for the first time. Its first combat mission was flown during the United States invasion of Panama in 1989.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_F-117_Nighthawk

Similarly, the CIA's secret Soviet submarine recovery project of the '70s, Azorean, actually took place in plane site. It's too hard to build and conceal a top secret ship, so it got a cover story as a Howard Huges project, the Glomar Explorer. And even then, it was found out.

A top-secret aircraft from the '80s, that was operational by 1990, may have begun in the '70s, like the F117, and just wouldn't be all that advanced today, never mind super-secret.

 

[Andreas]

A top-secret aircraft from the '80s, that was operational by 1990, may have begun in the '70s, like the F117, and just wouldn't be all that advanced today, never mind super-secret.

Exactly, thank you for the great summary. It's not a secret aircraft, of course it isn't. That's just ridiculous.

 

[Mendel]

Exactly, thank you for the great summary. It's not a secret aircraft, of course it isn't. That's just ridiculous.

I've refrained from calling the idea ridiculous, because I don't want to make fun of it. I want to apply common sense to it.

Things like "propellers but housed internally with minimal inlet and outlets", for example: how does a propeller work? Can it still do that if you surround it almost completely? how does it generate thrust? How fast must the air be driven through these small inlets and outlets? Why is no vehicle that drives air vertically through itself, such as a hovercraft, been fitted with "minimal inlets and outlets"?

When we switch from "can I imagine it?" to "how is it possible?", we can start bringing our critical faculties to bear.

 

[NorCal Dave]

As several people have already done in this thread, I just had to try recreating the picture using a sheet of glass.

Nice work! Be sure to re-post this over on the Calvine Hoax Theory thread as well:

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/calvine-photo-hoax-theories.12596/

 

[John J.]

My point is: if we can recreate the scene using cheap materials in less than an hour, it's fair to say the entire Calvine case falls apart. Without the photographer's name, any further research is both impossible and unnecessary.

Excellent work on the through-glass photos, @Andreas!

I've always thought that the Calvine photo was most likely a hoax, and feel Wim van Utrecht demonstrated how it could be replicated fairly easily. Andreas has demonstrated another method that I think could be an equally convincing way of manufacturing similar scenes (and regards to @Z.W. Wolf for raising that technique).

The lack of clear provenance prior to Daily Record/ Craig Lindsay is problematic, and I don't think we'd spend much time on a similar digital image which lacked provenance.

But we are left with a problem, I think: It has been demonstrated how the Calvine photo could have been made, but it hasn't been proven that that is how it was made. We haven't debunked it, although @Andreas, @NorCal Dave and Wim van Utrecht have shown how very similar scenes can be photographed.
A UFO enthusiast might point out,
"You've made a picture with a fake UFO, and a fake plane. But that doesn't demonstrate that planes don't exist; ergo, you haven't demonstrated that UFOs don't exist, or that the Calvine photo doesn't show a real UFO."

 

[Mendel]

A UFO enthusiast might point out,
"You've made a picture with a fake UFO, and a fake plane. But that doesn't demonstrate that planes don't exist; ergo, you haven't demonstrated that UFOs don't exist, or that the Calvine photo doesn't show a real UFO."

"Yes. But it means that you can't demonstrate that the Calvine photo shows a real UFO, or that they exist at all. Now consider: if we cannot demonstrate neither that unicorns exist, nor that unicorns don't exist, should we believe that they do?"

A 1st class debunk is when we can explain a sighting.

A 2nd class debunk is when we show the sighting doesn't really prove an anomaly. When we lack data (as we do here—we don't even have a location), that's often the best we can do.

 

[Ann K]

A UFO enthusiast might point out,
"You've made a picture with a fake UFO, and a fake plane. But that doesn't demonstrate that planes don't exist; ergo, you haven't demonstrated that UFOs don't exist, or that the Calvine photo doesn't show a real UFO."

Similarly, you cannot prove that the photo itself was deliberately faked.

 

[Chundered]

I've refrained from calling the idea ridiculous, because I don't want to make fun of it. I want to apply common sense to it.

Things like "propellers but housed internally with minimal inlet and outlets", for example: how does a propeller work? Can it still do that if you surround it almost completely? how does it generate thrust? How fast must the air be driven through these small inlets and outlets? Why is no vehicle that drives air vertically through itself, such as a hovercraft, been fitted with "minimal inlets and outlets"?

When we switch from "can I imagine it?" to "how is it possible?", we can start bringing our critical faculties to bear.

Propellers was the wrong word - fan blades should have been used, was thinking more along the lines of ducted in-line fans.

I guess for this to be an alternative to other speculation as to what the photo depicts it only has to be possible and whilst I originally linked it via oblique references to a very successful UAV it may have been something that was spectacularly unsuccessful and subsequently buried silently.

How is it possible being totally relevant and my starting point in attempting to find an explanation that fits all the available evidence.

 

[Andreas]

But we are left with a problem, I think: It has been demonstrated how the Calvine photo could have been made, but it hasn't been proven that that is how it was made. We haven't debunked it, although @Andreas, @NorCal Dave and Wim van Utrecht have shown how very similar scenes can be photographed.

That's absolutely true, and I think that's all we can do in this case. We can demonstrate why the picture itself isn't proof of anything unusual happening in Calvine in 1990. However, proving that it's not a spacecraft (or a secret military craft) is impossible without more data—especially testimonies from the photographer.

Now consider: if we cannot demonstrate neither that unicorns exist, nor that unicorns don't exist, should we believe that they do?"

This is important to remember when "UFO enthusiasts" claim that pictures like the Calvine photo are proof of alien visitations. If it can be shown that a photo could easily be faked, then we're left choosing between a hoax or aliens. If someone wants to believe in alien visitations, that's perfectly fine with me. But claiming that a certain photo is proof of their claims is not. That's why I think it's important to recreate photos using everyday objects—if it can be hoaxed, then it's not proof of anything.

 

[NorCal Dave]

I originally linked it via oblique references to a very successful UAV it may have been something that was spectacularly unsuccessful and subsequently buried silently.

I think the problem is which successful UAV are you referring to? The paper you originally linked mentioned several, with ones like Amber eventually becoming the successful Predator, but none of them resemble anything close to the Calvine UFO. Unless I missed it in the paper somewhere.

We all engage in reasoned speculation at times, often where we lack data, but we try to base that speculation on relevant evidence. We can imagine a floating LTA craft with some sort of ducted fan propulsion, but can we link that to any relevant evidence to suggest such a thing ever existed or the Calvine UFO might be one?

 

[JMartJr]

That's why I think it's important to recreate photos using everyday objects—if it can be hoaxed, then it's not proof of anything.

And why, going forward, photographs and vids are going to be pretty useless, as more sophisticated methods of faking them become cheaper, easier and more widely available.

 

[Mendel]

Propellers was the wrong word - fan blades should have been used, was thinking more along the lines of ducted in-line fans.

Yes. But have these ever been successfully used? I believe all designs using these ran into problems.

I guess for this to be an alternative to other speculation as to what the photo depicts it only has to be possible

my point is, it's not

and whilst I originally linked it via oblique references to a very successful UAV it may have been something that was spectacularly unsuccessful and subsequently buried silently.

if it was able to hover out of ground effect, after flying for miles from its base, I'd label it spectacularly successful.

How is it possible being totally relevant and my starting point in attempting to find an explanation that fits all the available evidence.

My question was directed at your proposed craft plus surrounding narrative, not at the Calvine photo.

The Avrocar article on Wikipedia is a good read, illustrating how something that was deemed possible ultimately wasn't, because the designers did not understand lift sufficiently.

 

[Andreas]

Nice work! Be sure to re-post this over on the Calvine Hoax Theory thread as well:

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/calvine-photo-hoax-theories.12596/

Will do that.

Made one more attempt using the same setup—a bent piece of copper plate and an airplane silhouette painted on a sheet of glass. This time, I used a better camera, allowing for full control over the focus, which turned out to be quite useful. Once I had control, I found it surprisingly easy to set the focus somewhere in between all the objects in the scene, giving everything that slightly out-of-focus look.

Here are two of the shots I took. Still not a perfect match, but that's hardly surprising considering the Calvine photo we've all seen is an old analog photograph that has been developed, enlarged, scanned, and who knows what else.

 

[Charlie Wiser]

Exactly. That's the way I would have done it.

I think the shape of the UFO is important. If someone wanted to hoax a UFO or black project craft photo, why cut out a diamond? Their options were infinite since they could cut out (or paint) any shape, so why not at least make it look like an alien spaceship? Whereas if it's a real model, they were limited by what was available to them.

The movement of the jets in successive photos (assuming the "6 images" testimony is accurate) suggests those are real jets. The hoaxers were known to hike (or poach) in the area so they knew the expected flight path. To make the hoax they had two options for the UFO - 2D illusion on glass of any one of an infinite number of shapes, or a 3D model from whatever was lying around.

Given it's the same dimensions, texture, and shading* you'd expect from a 3D star, not to mention the bobble at the end matching the bead on common plastic models, I prefer this theory to any glass painting (which would actually be 6 glass paintings).

*The UFO has a shaded line through the middle and a dark spot that matches the forward facing arm and arm-tip of a 3D star. The glitter surface gives the uneven texturing. The imperfect silhouette comes from either damage or unevenly applied glitter. You can just make out the dark lines (red arrows) as well as the lighter patch opposite it (blue arrow), like the shadows on a 3D star. Here, my star is card not plastic, doesn't have the bead, and is a slimmer model - 3 decades of top secret R&D has improved the aerodynamics.

 

[NorCal Dave]

I think the shape of the UFO is important. If someone wanted to hoax a UFO or black project craft photo, why cut out a diamond?

This puzzled me as well and your idea that they just used what they had is certainly a likely option. However, in UFO and secret aircraft circles of the time, there is the idea that the Aroura and other craft might be sorta diamond shaped:

Or the Lockheed "Hopeless Diamond" from the '70s:

A practical model is still more likely, but the idea of a diamond shaped craft may not be as unlikely as we think.

The movement of the jets in successive photos (assuming the "6 images" testimony is accurate) suggests those are real jets. The hoaxers were known to hike (or poach) in the area so they knew the expected flight path.

I would suggest maybe not. The only story about the supposed photographer(s) with any link to the event is from the handwritten MoD report and Linsday's memory of a 10-minute phone call 30 years ago.

According to that, Linsday called someplace, maybe the correct hotel, and spoke to someone, the supposed photographer. According to Linsday and the notes for the time to an extent, the person claimed to out on an evening hike after work with a buddy when the event happened. They were supposedly seasonal workers at a local hotel. I don't remember anything to suggest they were regulars or hikers experienced in the local area. I forgot where the poacher story comes from, but local poachers would not at all be consistent with seasonal workers. I would think these stories are likely mutually exclusive.

Even if we take Linsday's 30 year recollections as correct, it's just him passing on the story he was told over the phone from a person he never met. It could be a complete fabrication. The few witnesses that Clarke tracked down that confirm any of this, give accounts that are dubious at best, blending multiple UFO tropes with what Clarke had already reported.

As we really have no clue who the photographer was, aside from the name Clarke has released to no avail, it's hard to say they had any idea about Harrier flight paths or anything else in the area. Though they certainly could have.

I prefer this theory to any glass painting (which would actually be 6 glass paintings).

Not necessarily. In my early attempts at proof of concept, I painted an aircraft on glass and just used a yellowjacket (wasps) trap as my UFO. As the aircraft was on glass, it's easy to move it around. A hybrid method with a model UFO and aircraft on glass gives great versatility:

Using this method, one could "move" the aircraft across the scene fairly easy. One model, one aircraft painted on glass and multiple photos.

We're 36 pages into this subject, just on this page, and I'm looking forward to seeing a wrap up of it on your website in the future .

 

[John J.]

If someone wanted to hoax a UFO or black project craft photo, why cut out a diamond? Their options were infinite since they could cut out (or paint) any shape, so why not at least make it look like an alien spaceship? Whereas if it's a real model, they were limited by what was available to them.

(My bold).

(1) What does an alien spaceship look like?
Most of our preconceptions about this come from popular culture (going back to the SF pulp magazine covers of the 1930s and the "Golden Age" of science fiction, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Age_of_Science_Fiction) and from more recent science fiction/ fantasy films and TV series.
Other than artist's impressions of what future human starships might look like- always based on hypothetical technologies- we have no way of rationally predicting what an alien spacecraft might look like, if they exist.

(2) (Nerd confession) As a boy/ young man, I made lots of models from plastic (styrene) construction kits. Also assembled / converted many "white metal" (generally tin-lead alloy, like a low-grade pewter) and plastic resin models. With practice- and a desire to build subjects not available (or affordable)- I became reasonably proficient at scratchbuilding models; that is, using plastic card, "green stuff" epoxy putty, other materials and odd parts from commercial styrene kits to make passable models of e.g. vehicles that couldn't be bought "off the shelf".

Cut a long story short, it wouldn't be that difficult to build an original model on a very modest budget and limited expertise/resources. @Andreas mentioned the hoax photos of Billy Meier https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Meier;

-Meier's photographs look to me like rather unimaginative concoctions of cake tins, ping-pong balls, yoghurt pots and supermarket flan cases. His disillusioned ex-wife, Kalliope Zafiriou, said that they were made

...with items like trash can lids, carpet tacks and other household objects

(It was also confirmed that some of Meier's photos of aliens were of women from the singing/ dancing troupe The Golddiggers on the Dean Martin show; Wikipedia, link as above).

The movement of the jets in successive photos (assuming the "6 images" testimony is accurate) suggests those are real jets. The hoaxers were known to hike (or poach) in the area so they knew the expected flight path.

Calvine isn't in a military training area and there isn't an airbase very close-by (the closest is RAF Lossiemouth, approx. 70 miles/ 95 km away IIRC), so it's unlikely that there are predictable military flights in its vicinity.

I don't remember anything to suggest they were regulars or hikers experienced in the local area. I forgot where the poacher story comes from, but local poachers would not at all be consistent with seasonal workers. I would think these stories are likely mutually exclusive.

Agreed. Lindsay said they had English accents; the original take is that they were young men working summer jobs in a local hotel kitchen.
Intuitively- and in the absence of further evidence- I feel the poaching story is unlikely:
Poaching (in the UK) happens, but poachers either consume the game themselves or know people in the community they can sell on to. Two young men from out-of-area working a seasonal job would be unlikely to have the local contacts needed to sell on their prey, and might well be "stepping on the toes" of any local providers.
If the two guys were recent arrivals in the area, and known to be poachers, they were obviously pretty indiscreet, and would probably have received the attention of local police.

 

[Andreas]

I think the shape of the UFO is important. If someone wanted to hoax a UFO or black project craft photo, why cut out a diamond? Their options were infinite since they could cut out (or paint) any shape, so why not at least make it look like an alien spaceship? Whereas if it's a real model, they were limited by what was available to them.

I've been thinking a lot about this, and at first, I was also skeptical about the shape. Why does it look the way it does? Why not just make a "traditional" UFO? But I believe there are logical explanations for this. If the hoaxer wasn't particularly skilled—or at least not very artistic—using a square bent diagonally makes perfect sense. It's easy to create and easy to attach to the glass. Furthermore, an inexperienced hoaxer might actually believe that the shape would resemble the profile of a "flying disc." If we compare it to the hoax flying saucer in the Puerto Rico photos, it's reasonable to assume the photographer tried to create something similar but ended up with a "diamond shape.

And when it comes to analyzing shapes and patterns on the "ufo", I think we should be careful. It's difficult to say what's actually there, and what is simply a result of bad resolution, printing and not least careless handling of the physical photo over the years. The ufo, as well as the rest of the photo is literarily littered with strange patterns and grain.

Let's for example take a look at the "shade line" often assume being a trace of the object actually being a Christmas ornament. Is it really there? Well, something can be seen, but personally I see an oval circle.

Obviously we can be sure, but to me this looks like some kind of artifact on the print itself. Could even be a result of someone pointing at the physical photograph with a pen.

Finally, I noticed something interesting while trying to recreate the photo using a metal profile glued to a sheet of glass. The piece I used had perfectly straight and sharp edges, yet my photo still showed several "bumps" and imperfections, making the object appear slightly "organic." This seems to be the result of the object being slightly out of focus. Therefore, I don't think we can draw any definite conclusions about the shape of the Calvine object.

 

[Charlie Wiser]

This puzzled me as well and your idea that they just used what they had is certainly a likely option. However, in UFO and secret aircraft circles of the time, there is the idea that the Aroura and other craft might be sorta diamond shaped:

Or the Lockheed "Hopeless Diamond" from the '70s:

A practical model is still more likely, but the idea of a diamond shaped craft may not be as unlikely as we think.

I don't think it's plausible that someone attempting to recreate (on glass) those craft would paint a simple featureless diamond shape. They could have drawn anything but they drew a blob?

I would suggest maybe not. The only story about the supposed photographer(s) with any link to the event is from the handwritten MoD report and Linsday's memory of a 10-minute phone call 30 years ago.

I don't have any reason to doubt Lindsay's recollection (other than misremembering a few details of course) - which means he spoke to someone, and it would be odd if that someone wasn't the actual photographer. So, the story Lindsay tells is the story the hoaxer wanted to convey.

Evidence for the additional 5 images also comes from the guy who came forward a couple of years ago saying he saw them on a visit to the Daily Record.

According to that, Linsday called someplace, maybe the correct hotel, and spoke to someone, the supposed photographer. According to Linsday and the notes for the time to an extent, the person claimed to out on an evening hike after work with a buddy when the event happened. They were supposedly seasonal workers at a local hotel. I don't remember anything to suggest they were regulars or hikers experienced in the local area. I forgot where the poacher story comes from, but local poachers would not at all be consistent with seasonal workers. I would think these stories are likely mutually exclusive.

A reference for the poaching story (Clarke has also written about this on his blog):

We understood initially that the men were out walking, but it was then suggested to us by a senior ex-military source that they had been poaching, hence the camera... The camera was to capture a shot of they bagged a prize.

Source: pprune.org post by Matthew Illsley, Feb 2022, who upthread explains he's a "researcher assisting Dr David Clarke of Sheffield Hallam University" and downthread he writes the poaching story comes from:

a senior former defence intelligence source who interviewed the witnesses at the time, and we're only repeating what he says they were doing. They initially told the RAF they were out walking, but who takes a camera out on a walk at 8.30pm?

If we accept this source is real and the interview happened, it seems the photographers were persuaded to give the poaching story as an explanation for why they had a camera on them. That is, they didn't want to back down from the hoax, so said they were out walking; the officer asked why would you take a camera out at that time? And they admitted they were poaching and wanted to take a photo if they caught anything.

As someone on the same thread writes: "Poachers don't take photos." However, since the UFO isn't real and the photographers weren't actually poaching, none of this means anything. Ugh.

As we really have no clue who the photographer was, aside from the name Clarke has released to no avail, it's hard to say they had any idea about Harrier flight paths or anything else in the area. Though they certainly could have.

We don't know where they were though. They may have driven who knows where one weekend, to where planes were flying, to get the shot. It's too similar to the Puerto Rico hoax to not be an homage, in my opinion, so planes were required.

Not necessarily. In my early attempts at proof of concept, I painted an aircraft on glass and just used a yellowjacket (wasps) trap as my UFO. As the aircraft was on glass, it's easy to move it around. A hybrid method with a model UFO and aircraft on glass gives great versatility:

I think the MoD would've noticed if all the plane silhouettes were the same on all the photos? While it's fairly clear the MoD did conclude they were a hoax, they don't give that as a reason for thinking so.

 

[Charlie Wiser]

We're 36 pages into this subject, just on this page, and I'm looking forward to seeing a wrap up of it on your website in the future .

Bloody hell.

 

[Charlie Wiser]

(My bold).

(1) What does an alien spaceship look like?
Most of our preconceptions about this come from popular culture (going back to the SF pulp magazine covers of the 1930s and the "Golden Age" of science fiction, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Age_of_Science_Fiction) and from more recent science fiction/ fantasy films and TV series.
Other than artist's impressions of what future human starships might look like- always based on hypothetical technologies- we have no way of rationally predicting what an alien spacecraft might look like, if they exist.

True but the only relevant thing is what a couple of 20-year-old lads in 1990 thought a spaceship might look like (if painting one) or what they could find lying around (if using an existing model).

Agreed. Lindsay said they had English accents; the original take is that they were young men working summer jobs in a local hotel kitchen.
Intuitively- and in the absence of further evidence- I feel the poaching story is unlikely:

I think it's plausible they said they were poaching, which is the point here.

 

[Charlie Wiser]

Therefore, I don't think we can draw any definite conclusions about the shape of the Calvine object.

Yes, we'll never be able to draw definitive conclusions with the evidence we have right now (i.e. the one photo) but given the shape, the shading, and the "bead", and the opportunity (something plausibly lying around in a hotel or residence) a 3d star is the most likely by far, to my mind.

 

[Giddierone]

Their options were infinite since they could cut out (or paint) any shape, so why not at least make it look like an alien spaceship? Whereas if it's a real model, they were limited by what was available to them.

Folding a single sheet of A4 (readily available!) into a boat gives you precisely the same shape as the Calvine "UFO". [ #780 in the water reflection thread]

EDIT: It's also a kind of paper airplane design.

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/abs/10.1098/rstl.1714.0050

 

[NorCal Dave]

It's too similar to the Puerto Rico hoax to not be an homage, in my opinion, so planes were required.

Yeah but, the Puerto Rico, and suspected Puerto Rico photos are not real planes. They're models. I'm not saying a glass technique is the "for sure" method, just a possibility. The Puerto Rico photos are just the classic 2 model technique, which is certainly possible for the Calvine photo.

IF there were 6 photos, which seems likely, a glass hoax with both the UFO and the aircraft on glass, I agree with you that seems unlikely. A big unknown is time, as in how long did they spend making the photo? Even some of the suspected Puerto Rico photos have the B1 Lancer model in different positions, showing the hoaxer took the time to move them around and create different angles.

No real planes needed, thus no need to go where planes might be.

Using whatever was handy is certainly common, as your websites collection of "Junk Chucked in the Air" shows. However, I was reminded when fooling around with a recreation, that photos are 2D and what's in them need not be 3D to appear as such. I think I got the 3D effect pretty good in this one, at least as good as the Calvine photo. I'm not artistic in any way, but some simple shadowing and highlights on a cardboard cutout isn't that difficult. This also showed me that the diamond shape may have been inadvertent. If someone was trying to make flying saucer, but wanted it more shaper edged and pointy as opposed to the traditional rounded over look, this is what they'd end up with in profile. Granted, I was working off a known image and not creating this from scratch or de novo as they say :

A reference for the poaching story (Clarke has also written about this on his blog):

We understood initially that the men were out walking, but it was then suggested to us by a senior ex-military source that they had been poaching, hence the camera... The camera was to capture a shot of they bagged a prize.

...a senior former defence intelligence source who interviewed the witnesses at the time, and we're only repeating what he says they were doing. They initially told the RAF they were out walking, but who takes a camera out on a walk at 8.30pm?

I really hate these "senior ex-military" or "senior former defense intelligence sources" and there supposed insinuations. It's nothing but hearsay from an unnamed source, who may have nothing to do with the "intelligence" or the "military". And the quote is just plain wrong about taking a camera. It was August and has been established that sun set was somewhere around 9:00pm with twilight hanging on to nearly 10:00pm. It's a great time to take pictures:

The golden hour refers to (roughly) the first hour after sunrise and the last hour before sunset. It's a time that's great for photography; hence, the golden hour is also referred to as the magic hour.

https://digital-photography-school.com/how-photograph-golden-hour/

So, our senior whatever-they-are knows nothing about photography and/or is just hyping up a "poacher" story by suggesting that it's common to photograph one's illegal activities and have it developed at the local corner drug. Or that the hoaxer was trying to put him off the scent of a hoax by telling the official that he was engaged in illegal activities. "I wasn't making fake UFO photos. No sir. I was too busy poaching".

Whatever happened, it was 30 years ago, and our senior guys are long retired. IF they had actually spoken to the photographers 30 years ago, why the anonymity now? Even if this is a still classified US aircraft and they are bond by an NDA concerning the aircraft, they can talk about the supposed photographers. If some former official is going to claim they spoke to the photographer(s) and they were claiming to be poacher, then just come out and say it. Not hide behind a screen as it were.

Not to mention this is contradictory to Linsday's claims and the MoD notes. When did this supposed Intelligence guy go talk to the photographer? Did he go up to Calvine, or just talk to the person on the phone like Linsday?

In addition, going back through Clarke's stuff, it's apparent that all the people that went on the record, such as Spiers and Baldwin, said it was a suspected hoax. It's the anonymous ones that hint at a US aircraft, poaching and other nefarious goings ons. The exception is Nick Pope.

I just give little to no credence to the poaching claim at all, at least as long as it remains anonymous hearsay. It just makes no sense.

 

[mystry]

A 1st class debunk is when we can explain a sighting.

A 2nd class debunk is when we show the sighting doesn't really prove an anomaly. When we lack data (as we do here—we don't even have a location), that's often the best we can do.

With regards to the 2nd, do you believe any picture can ever "really prove an anomaly"? I'm having trouble thinking any picture ever could. At best a picture can suggest something may have happened, with the need for other evidence or more research, or provide ideas for further investigation, or help corroborate testimony, that kind of thing, I think. Pictures have their limits due to their nature. So it is a given. (I do like the demonstrations how the photo might have been faked, though.)

 

[deirdre]

A 1st class debunk is when we can explain a sighting.

A 2nd class debunk is when we show the sighting doesn't really prove an anomaly. When we lack data (as we do here—we don't even have a location), that's often the best we can do.

i think
A first class debunk is when we can PROVE what a sighting actually is. (ie. it IS a lighted sign on a crane)

A 2nd class debunk is when we can explain a sighting (ie. bugs caught in cobwebs look the same, it's likely a...)

 

[Ann K]

@NorCal Dave

External Quote:

The golden hour refers to (roughly) the first hour after sunrise and the last hour before sunset. It's a time that's great for photography; hence, the golden hour is also referred to as the magic hour.

In Edinburgh the sun sets at ten o'clock in midsummer,
( https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/uk/edinburgh?month=8 )
and as Calvine is quite a way farther north, it would be even later. That's daylight, and twilight would stretch it even later. Going out with a camera at 8:30 sounds reasonable.

 

[Mendel]

With regards to the 2nd, do you believe any picture can ever "really prove an anomaly"? I'm having trouble thinking any picture ever could.

You're just used to pictures that are supposed to prove stuff but don't, or that have unclear provenance.

 

[Andreas]

Yeah but, the Puerto Rico, and suspected Puerto Rico photos are not real planes. They're models. I'm not saying a glass technique is the "for sure" method, just a possibility. The Puerto Rico photos are just the classic 2 model technique, which is certainly possible for the Calvine photo.

IF there were 6 photos, which seems likely, a glass hoax with both the UFO and the aircraft on glass, I agree with you that seems unlikely. A big unknown is time, as in how long did they spend making the photo? Even some of the suspected Puerto Rico photos have the B1 Lancer model in different positions, showing the hoaxer took the time to move them around and create different angles.

I suspect the Puerto Rico photos may have inspired the hoaxer in the Calvine case, particularly in terms of composition—with the plane, UFO, and branches. However, there are fundamental differences that suggest a different technique was used.

In the Puerto Rico case, the model plane is clearly visible, with several details discernible. In the Calvine photo, however, it appears as nothing more than a distant, blurry spot. Then there's the "UFO"—in the Puerto Rico photos, it is obviously a three-dimensional model, seen from different angles as we would expect from something hanging from a thread. The Calvine photo, on the other hand, looks completely different; we can't even determine its actual shape.

According to Lindsay, the six photos showed a stationary UFO hovering in the same spot in all six images. If that's true, it suggests a hanging model was unlikely. The Puerto Rico photos look three-dimensional and "alive," whereas the Calvine photo appears suspiciously two-dimensional.

Even if the six presumed Calvine photos actually show a jet flying by, I still think sheets of glass are more likely than threads. A hoaxer using hanging models would have to contend with wind, visible threads, and the difficulty of keeping the "UFO" at the same angle and position. Plus, suspending that tiny Harrier model would require an extremely long wire.

On the other hand, if the hoaxer used a sheet of glass with a "UFO" in the center and a movable silhouette of a jet beneath, it wouldn't take much effort to snap a few pictures. It's also possible that two sheets of glass were used—one with the UFO and another with the jet. In that case, moving the jet would take only seconds.

 

[John J.]

In Edinburgh the sun sets at ten o'clock in midsummer,
( https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/uk/edinburgh?month=8 )
and as Calvine is quite a way farther north, it would be even later. That's daylight, and twilight would stretch it even later. Going out with a camera at 8:30 sounds reasonable.

The Sunrise-Sunset website https://sunrise-sunset.org/gb/calvine/2025/8 gives a sunset time of 21:23, 24 seconds (9: 23 pm) for Calvine, August 04. Twilight ends 10:09:46 pm.

We don't know (as far as I can recall) what time the men set out, the claim is they saw the "UFO" at approx. 21:00.
They would have had plenty of time, and light, for a bit of photography that evening, a few pictures of the local landscape for the folks back home.
I don't see anything unusual in two guys doing seasonal work far from home in a rural landscape taking a camera with them. It's one of the least puzzling parts of the whole narrative!
Someone out walking in the countryside has a camera- and they have to explain why?! And they think the best response is, "...so I could have a photographic record of my criminal activity"? It's absurd.

I think it's plausible they said they were poaching, which is the point here.

Mm, fair point. But why risk- even if that risk is small- a police investigation? And the story is implausible- carrying rifles or shotguns, even air rifles, around the largely open moorland/ farmland near Calvine in daylight, at a time of year when hikers might well be about, could attract unwanted attention.
If done without the landowner's permission, or on public land, it would be a firearms offence; penalties in Scotland (like the rest of the UK) can be severe.

Shooting in areas to which the public have unrestricted access, or in communal gardens or similar areas is not acceptable.

Police Scotland, referring to air rifles https://www.scotland.police.uk/abou...losives-licensing/frequently-asked-questions/.

Farmers often have firearms for pest control, but Calvine is a tiny community and uninvited strangers carrying guns on farmland in daylight would perhaps be noticeable.
Deer stalking is part of the Highland scene, and as well as being a tradition it's an important part of the economy for some smaller communities. However, it's normally conducted on upland areas in Scotland's (large) private estates.

The Scottish Outdoor Access Code (website here) has the section
"Heading for the Scottish Hills Use this service all year to plan hill routes that avoid disturbing deer stalking."
It has a map to enable hikers etc. to check on local deer stalking, Calvine seems to be in the Eastern Highlands section:

Looking through the section "Area 5: The Eastern Highlands -All mountain areas east of the A9"
https://www.outdooraccess-scotland....ills-stalking-tables-eastern-highlands-area-5, I couldn't see any named stalking areas close to Calvine.
Calvine is actually to the west of the A9's north-south route, so just in case I looked through "Area 6: The Central Highlands",
https://www.outdooraccess-scotland....ills-stalking-tables-central-highlands-area-6, and again couldn't identify stalking areas near Calvine, so two young men with rifles (even if only air rifles) might stand out.

-Would add; the details in the links above are for 2024, not 1990; and it's perfectly possible I've overlooked a named geographical area in the vicinity of Calvine; but I suspect that apart from local farmers- who would be well-known in such a small community- it would be rare to see people carrying guns on the moorland near Calvine.

 

[John J.]

I really hate these "senior ex-military" or "senior former defense intelligence sources" and there supposed insinuations. It's nothing but hearsay from an unnamed source, who may have nothing to do with the "intelligence" or the "military".

Agreed.
In Fortean Times Issue 423, October 2022 (I think- no longer have that issue) there's a feature written by David Clarke about Calvine and finding Craig Lindsay. Clarke describes Lindsay as an RAF officer; as far as I'm aware this is not the case; Lindsay was a public relations officer employed by the RAF at Pitreavie Castle. (My sincerest apologies to Mr Lindsay if I'm mistaken).

Nick Pope, a former MoD civil servant, has described his stint at the "UFO desk" as his tour of duty there.
Certainly some MoD/ other civilian personnel accompany armed forces on some deployments, e.g. specialist engineers/ logisticians, interpreters for rarer languages, MoD police (different to military police) to assist local civil authorities. It is unlikely Nick Pope would ever have been required to do this, and being a civilian clerk or administrator in an office in southeast England is not a "tour of duty", even if you're working for the Ministry of Defence.

Both Clarke and Pope over-egg the pudding a little, making associations with the military seem a bit more significant than they were (both Lindsay and Pope worked, no doubt productively, in support of the military, but were not military personnel).

There's a bit of a trope in UFO stories, and amongst "investigators", of shoehorning in connections to the armed forces/ intelligence services, or of apparently accepting the accounts of claimed former service personnel who cannot be identified or questioned.
It's part of the folklore, and it's what UFO enthusiasts want to hear.

 

[JMartJr]

Plus, suspending that tiny Harrier model would require an extremely long wire.

Just to speak to that one point, a pretty normal spool of thread is hundreds of yards/meters long... having long enough string is not an issue.

And getting it over a branch overhead is easy, just hold the end of the thread and toss the spool over. Of course, hanging a model from a hand-held pole or the like, like a fishing pole, is also pretty easy.

 

[Charlie Wiser]

Yeah but, the Puerto Rico, and suspected Puerto Rico photos are not real planes. They're models. I'm not saying a glass technique is the "for sure" method, just a possibility. The Puerto Rico photos are just the classic 2 model technique, which is certainly possible for the Calvine photo.

IF there were 6 photos, which seems likely, a glass hoax with both the UFO and the aircraft on glass, I agree with you that seems unlikely. A big unknown is time, as in how long did they spend making the photo? Even some of the suspected Puerto Rico photos have the B1 Lancer model in different positions, showing the hoaxer took the time to move them around and create different angles.

If I was going to do this, I'd want to make the photos one step up from the one I'm paying homage to (or am influenced by). So, 6 photos - especially if they were on a joined strip which I think is the case that was made - was a good move.

Maybe they didn't have a model plane. If they saw the planes flying on previous walks, then saw the Puerto Rico image in a UFO magazine, that would be enough to prompt them to try for themselves - without the bother of finding and hanging up a model plane then moving it around between shots.

From the hoax cases I've looked at (such as McMinnville and Travis Walton), people who do this don't start with the intention of being super famous, of creating a "classic" UFO case, or of catching the attention of the MoD by making an amazing realistic-looking shot. They're just trying it out. If it turns out well, they try to sell it to the paper. If the paper rejects it, they move on... Until the MoD press officer calls them and freaks them out because someone in a high place took them seriously.

If they went to the trouble of getting a model plane, I would hope they'd also go to the trouble of using a better UFO model. But if real planes were already there and they grabbed the first household object that could plausibly be a UFO, that makes more sense to me.

Using whatever was handy is certainly common, as your websites collection of "Junk Chucked in the Air" shows. However, I was reminded when fooling around with a recreation, that photos are 2D and what's in them need not be 3D to appear as such. I think I got the 3D effect pretty good in this one, at least as good as the Calvine photo.

Yes it does look 3D. I'm just taken by the shading on the Calvine pic, as well as the glitter effect, that happen to exactly match a 3D star. For someone not interested in trick photography, using glass seems like an extra unnecessary step. Of course, maybe these guys were interested in trick photography.

I really hate these "senior ex-military" or "senior former defense intelligence sources" and there supposed insinuations. It's nothing but hearsay from an unnamed source, who may have nothing to do with the "intelligence" or the "military". And the quote is just plain wrong about taking a camera. It was August and has been established that sun set was somewhere around 9:00pm with twilight hanging on to nearly 10:00pm. It's a great time to take pictures:

I just need to clear up something here, if it even matters:

Clarke wrote in 2021 that he talked to "a source from Defence Intelligence" who told him "DI55 UFO desk officer" went to interview the witnesses then opened a file.

This source told Clarke (second-hand) that this desk officer claimed "they were poachers who had killed their prey and were posing with the animal when the 'UFO' appeared." It's not clear from this if the witnesses themselves claimed to be poachers. The poaching story, and them taking a camera to snap their prey, might not have come from the witnesses themselves and in any case Clarke got the story third-hand.

That DI source was, according to Clarke's research assistant above, "a senior ex-military source" but it was the desk officer who did the actual interview. Allegedly. The fact is, the info written in that file is the same as the press officer Lindsay got from his phone interview. There's no evidence there was an additional in-person interview.

In a different 2021 article on his blog, Clarke mentions a source who provides different info (about how it was an American black project):

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

Clarke, July 2021

May or may not be the same DI officer as above, but regardless, it's Clarke who chose not to reveal their identity. Just seems an odd way to phrase it. Why not say "who spoke to me on the condition of anonymity"? It leaves open the possibility that the DI officer didn't care if they were anonymous or not.

I trust that Clarke talked to someone claiming to be that, but beyond that who knows. I would hope he vetted the guy. If this senior military person did talk to the photographers, I can imagine they'd be super-freaked-out - to the extent that they may have felt unable to fess up, after already getting the call from the press officer.

And I agree it's not plausible that taking a camera out at that time needed an alt-reason.

[the above is also a response to your comments below]

Not to mention this is contradictory to Linsday's claims and the MoD notes. When did this supposed Intelligence guy go talk to the photographer? Did he go up to Calvine, or just talk to the person on the phone like Linsday?

In addition, going back through Clarke's stuff, it's apparent that all the people that went on the record, such as Spiers and Baldwin, said it was a suspected hoax. It's the anonymous ones that hint at a US aircraft, poaching and other nefarious goings ons. The exception is Nick Pope.

 

[Andreas]

Just to speak to that one point, a pretty normal spool of thread is hundreds of yards/meters long... having long enough string is not an issue.

Absolutely, the actual length of the thread isn't the issue—it's what happens to the small jet model when hanging outdoors, suspended from a thread several meters long. If the photos show a jet "flying by" the UFO, we would expect the jet to appear at approximately the same angle in all the images.

I've used models to recreate UFO photos in the past, and wind is always a major issue for me. (Well, I should probably mention that I live in the Swedish highlands, where the wind is likely stronger than in many other places.) Shorter threads help mitigate this problem to some extent, but not entirely. It's striking how well the Calvine hoaxer managed to keep both the UFO and the jet level in the photo we've seen.

Could the Calvine hoaxer have used models and threads? Absolutely. But it's far more complicated than using a sheet of glass. The fact that the "UFO" is said to be stationary in all six photos makes me lean toward the glass hypothesis.

 

[Andreas]

This source told Clarke (second-hand) that this desk officer claimed "they were poachers who had killed their prey and were posing with the animal when the 'UFO' appeared."

Poaching near the A9 on a Saturday evening? I don't live in Scotland, but looking at the area on Google Earth, it doesn't seem very remote—the risk of being caught seems quite high, doesn't it?

Stories like this make me think Clarke might be falling down the rabbit hole with this investigation. It's understandable that he wants to find out what happened, but a blurry photo has now turned into a story about poachers, secret agents, and all the usual suspects.

 

[Scaramanga]

If we accept this source is real and the interview happened, it seems the photographers were persuaded to give the poaching story as an explanation for why they had a camera on them. That is, they didn't want to back down from the hoax, so said they were out walking; the officer asked why would you take a camera out at that time? And they admitted they were poaching and wanted to take a photo if they caught anything.

It is absolutely ridiculous to suppose that anyone needs an excuse for being out and about on the mountains with a camera. I've been to that area often and always have a camera with me. It's a scenic area, and 9pm early August is ideal for landscape photography. It would be absurd if someone out walking in the area didn't have a camera with them. The idea that anyone would need to invent a camera to cover their supposed poaching is about as absurd as it gets.

If that is what the 'intelligence officer' claims transpired then I call BS on the alleged interview, as no rational person, least of all an 'intelligence' officer, would question why anyone was outside in Scotland with a camera.

 

[John J.]

Clarke wrote in 2021 that he talked to "a source from Defence Intelligence" who told him "DI55 UFO desk officer" went to interview the witnesses then opened a file.

Might Clarke's assistant's source be Nick Pope?
He was the civilian UFO desk "officer" 1991-1994, at Secretariat (Air Staff) Sec (AS) 2a.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Pope_(journalist)
There is/ was no other UFO desk within British officialdom as far as I'm aware.

It's not clear that the desk officer interviewed the claimed witnesses as part of their work (or even while working there- Nick Pope's time was after the Calvine sighting).
Outside of (arguably) Clarke's assistant's account, there is no other evidence that (AS) 2a staff ever travelled to interview witnesses in person in the late 80s/ 1990s as far as I know.

The "senior ex-military source" and "UFO desk officer" might be the same person.
Can't supply checkable references, but I'm pretty sure I've seen one or two US UFO shows describe Nick Pope a "Senior Ministry of Defense Officer" or very similar words to that effect.
I'd imagine there are quite a lot of people who are a bit vague about the difference between someone working for the Ministry of Defence (or e.g. the US Department of Defense) and military personnel.

Clarke himself described Craig Lindsay as an RAF officer in Fortean Times 423, which might have been an unintentional error, but I feel it was misleading.

We have Clarke's (unidentified) assistant, whose reliability/ motivation we cannot examine, claiming to talk to a source who claimed to be from defence intelligence, whose own identity/ reliability/ motivation we cannot examine.

It seems there are layers of unverifiable anecdote from unaccountable people here.

 

[Mick West]

Poaching near the A9 on a Saturday evening? I don't live in Scotland, but looking at the area on Google Earth, it doesn't seem very remote—the risk of being caught seems quite high, doesn't it?

I think the misconception of remoteness is something that's given the "secret US aircraft" idea legs. Look at the supposed location

Looks like it's way off in the wilderness, great for secret tests? But zooming in:

It's 0.8 miles from the road.

And not just some country road. A busy road. And it's only 1 mile from here:

Some large object 100m above the hill would be quite visible from town and from the road. Which, again, is busy.

 

[Giddierone]

Some large object 100m above the hill would be quite visible from town and from the road.

But if it was misty then wouldn't see an unlighted object from the road or nearby town.

 

[Scaramanga]

If we accept this source is real and the interview happened, it seems the photographers were persuaded to give the poaching story as an explanation for why they had a camera on them. That is, they didn't want to back down from the hoax, so said they were out walking; the officer asked why would you take a camera out at that time? And they admitted they were poaching and wanted to take a photo if they caught anything.

It is absolutely ridiculous to suppose that anyone needs an excuse for being out and about on the mountains with a camera. I've been to that area often and always have a camera with me. It's a scenic area, and 9pm early August is ideal for landscape photography. It would be absurd if someone out walking in the area didn't have a camera with them. The idea that anyone would need to invent a camera to cover their supposed poaching is about as absurd as it gets.

If that is what the 'intelligence officer' claims transpired then I call BS on the alleged interview, as no rational person, least of all an 'intelligence' officer, would question why anyone was outside in Scotland with a camera.

I think the misconception of remoteness is something that's given the "secret US aircraft" idea legs. Look at the supposed location

The surrounding mountains are full of hill walkers at that time of year.....especially the 3 Munros ( mountains over 3,000 feet ) that are easily walkable from a layby at 1500 feet a few miles north of Calvine. There would still be people up there at 9pm, as it is such an easy walk back to the car. Have done those 3 myself. Looking south from one of them, Sgairneach Moor, the Calvine UFO ( red line for its position, below ) should have been easily visible.......and that's just one of the local hills that would have contained other walkers...none of whom saw the UFO....

 

[Charlie Wiser]

Might Clarke's assistant's source be Nick Pope?
He was the civilian UFO desk "officer" 1991-1994, at Secretariat (Air Staff) Sec (AS) 2a.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Pope_(journalist)
There is/ was no other UFO desk within British officialdom as far as I'm aware.
It's not clear that the desk officer interviewed the claimed witnesses as part of their work (or even while working there- Nick Pope's time was after the Calvine sighting).

The terminology "UFO desk" does rather suggest Pope's involvement in some way. As you mention, Pope didn't work there at the time but nor did he mention this in-person interview by his predecessor (with the 2nd-hand story) in his 1996 book Open Skies, Closed Minds, where he devotes a page to the Calvine incident. In his book, the men were merely "out walking". So the in-person interview and poaching narrative are apparently recent, suggesting that Pope could be the "senior ex-military source" (with the 3rd-hand story) referred to by Clarke's assistant on the message board above.

Sources:

Open Skies by Pope, 1996:

My predecessor on the 'UFO Desk' handled the investigation, but I inherited the fallout, and had to try to put the genie back in the bottle somewhat.

Source. Pope on X, July 2024.

Note that Pope downplays the importance of Lindsay's photo because the MoD hasn't authenticated it (like, who at MoD could even do that now?) and IMO because it renders his recreation from a few years ago entirely irrelevant.

It's a fascinating case - and it should also be noted that the MoD hasn't authenticated the Craig Lindsay image...

It's a fascinating case - though folks should note that the MoD hasn't commented on the claim that Craig Lindsay's image is a copy of one of the original 6 photos.

Source: Pope on X in Aug 2024 and Dec 2024.

He keeps posting his recreation on X (search "calvine" on his name) even though doing so only serves to muddy the waters.

We have Clarke's (unidentified) assistant, whose reliability/ motivation we cannot examine, claiming to talk to a source who claimed to be from defence intelligence, whose own identity/ reliability/ motivation we cannot examine.

Clarke's research assistant isn't unidentified - it's Matthew Illsley (you can google him - here's an interview with him from 2023 where the interviewer gives his bio in the first 60 seconds). I don't know that he's the one who spoke to the anonymous source but we can say Clarke's team did.