Mendel
Senior Member.
Gotta find a kite-shaped bug first.Would a bug flying by at around the same distance not produce a similar effect?
But that's not the point. Tape or bug, neither is a camera artifact.
Gotta find a kite-shaped bug first.Would a bug flying by at around the same distance not produce a similar effect?
If the shape is caused by the camera, as in Mick's example, it isenough of a camera artifact for me! ^_^Gotta find a kite-shaped bug first.
But that's not the point. Tape or bug, neither is a camera artifact.
Ok, I had another look. The right picture shows a "dark bokeh" that is triangular because the aperture is triangular, but it doesn't occlude the sky. It looks entirely different than the Calvine UFO, and it's really not "dark", merely a tad less bright than the sky around it.If the shape is caused by the camera, as in Mick's example, it isenough of a camera artifact for me! ^_^
I think that we are on pretty much the same page, then. The phenomenon is a thing, it does not seem to lead to something like the Calvine photo but more of just a slightly-less-bright shape.Ok, I had another look. The right picture shows a "dark bokeh" that is triangular because the aperture is triangular, but it doesn't occlude the sky. It looks entirely different than the Calvine UFO, and it's really not "dark", merely a tad less bright than the sky around it.
The phenomenon is a thing, it does not seem to lead to something like the Calvine photo but more of just a slightly-less-bright shape.
Sure. Take the picture at night. Then the white light that pervades the scene in the Calvine photo can't drown out the "dark bokeh".Now that we have established that dark bokeh does indeed exist...perhaps it is not impossible that some mechanism exists to make it darker.
It's i m p o s s i b l e that the Calvine diamond UFO is a camera artifact.
Easiest way to settle it would be to find or create an example.Bah....you already made statements to the effect that even dark bokeh was impossible.... "It never shows up inadvertantly as a dark spot on the image, that's just not possible." I thus have zero confidence in your assessment of what is possible.
Yeah, they're breaking copyright; you're not.
The original photographer has the right to license reproductions, so they basically made an unlicensed reproduction that is only legal if it falls under a copyright law exemption. And obviously the original photographer has the right to be credited for their work.
And I've never heard of an act of mechanical reproduction establishing joint copyright—it's not transformative.
Given Robinson has previously said:
[Source: quoted by Clarke, Jun 7, 2024 (Substack)]
External Quote:
Even those [hoax theories] that might be plausible create more problems than they solve. The simplest explanation, that we are seeing a photograph of a real object in the sky, is by far the most convincing
...he believes a real craft (30m by his estimation) is most likely, and the 3D star theory creates more problems than it solves. In other words, he's on record implying that a giant magic diamond is the most likely explanation, a conclusion worthy of ridicule IMO.
i'm only posting this because their claim of copyright has irked me from day one. and i would love it if they tried to sue someone.I'm not a copyright expert but my understanding is that digitally reproducing a copyrighted image doesn't transfer the copyright to you, and stealing a photo from the office (as Lindsay did) does not transfer the copyright to the *thief. I disputed his claim that his and SHU's copyright was being infringed (and implicitly, that Lindsay's request to credit SHU be honored).
Article: Strategic lawsuits against public participation (also known as SLAPP suits or intimidation lawsuits),[1] or strategic litigation against public participation,[2] are lawsuits intended to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition.[3]
Or, I guess, he's the right one but from his point of view it was a silly thing he did on a lark thirty years ago, does not have anything near the importance that has since been attached to it, and he's legitimately forgotten about it. I know I did dumb stuff 30 years ago, I am pretty sure I don't remember all of it.He's either covering up or has nothing to do with the photo. So, maybe it was a different Kevin Russell, not a particularly unusual name, that was also in the right place and time but is unaccounted for. Or Kevin Russell is not our photographer.
The whole copyright argument, why a side issue, is interesting. Presumably, the original photographer maintains the original copyright. That person is assumed to be Kevin Russell, as that's the supposed name on the back of the photo (have we ever seen the actual name?). But that's just the name Linsday wrote down. It might be who Linsday spoke to on the phone and that might be the person who took the photo. It might be the name that was giving to Linsday but is not the photographer.
It's unfortunate that we don't know who actually wrote the copyright claim on the back of the photograph. It's often said that a Daily Record picture editor wrote it, but does that really make sense? And if that's the case, where did he get the name from? What we see in Lindsay's photograph is nothing more than a hastily written credit to "Kevin Russell," with no contact information other than the Daily Record. The copyright claim is presumably there so that if someone wanted to print the image, they'd know who to contact for permission and potentially pay royalties.The whole copyright argument, why a side issue, is interesting. Presumably, the original photographer maintains the original copyright. That person is assumed to be Kevin Russell, as that's the supposed name on the back of the photo
August 4th to September 10th is 37 days.
PS If anyone's curious about the upside down name and address they're of a journalist (died in 2015) who worked for the Edinburgh Evening News.
Makes me wonder if maybe the photos weren't originally sent to a smaller newspaper first?
I would speculate that the most likely reason they haven't come forward is that they are bound by the Official Secrets Act, which carries some pretty serious trouble if breaching.
Or, I guess, he's the right one but from his point of view it was a silly thing he did on a lark thirty years ago, does not have anything near the importance that has since been attached to it, and he's legitimately forgotten about it. I know I did dumb stuff 30 years ago, I am pretty sure I don't remember all of it.
can you post the photo so we dont have to click that unknown link? thanks!An image of the back of the photo can be found by downloading the New Analysis of the Calvine UFO Photograph from here.
https://linktr.ee/anthology.co.uk?lt_utm_source=lt_admin_share_link#389544353
can you quote the relevant bit so we dont have to click that link.https://drclarke.substack.com/p/the-calvine-ufo-photo-an-unsolved
That answers whether it is a supposed name or not, who wrote it and the copyright query.
They'd be directed to the photo editor, who had Russell's contact info at the time.But if Russell was unknown to most people at the Daily Record (since the company claims no one by that name worked there, and no former employee seems to remember anything about the case), what would happen if someone called the newspaper asking to use Russell's photo?
Okay, I see. So he was the one in contact with "Russell" and the one who would make sure the money was passed on to him if the photos had been published? What do we know about Mr Photo Editor?They'd be directed to the photo editor, who had Russell's contact info at the time.
So he was the one in contact with "Russell" and the one who would make sure the money was passed on to him if the photos had been published? What do we know about Mr Photo Editor?
He had been with the Daily Record (and sister paper Sunday Mail) for over 28 years, during which time the Daily Record became the best-selling daily newspaper in Scotland.External Quote:
dailyrecord Administrator 23:10, 30 Jun 2012
Updated 23:45, 30 Jun 2012
Former Record picture editor Andy Allan, 63, has died suddenly.
Andy joined the Record in 1962. In 1970, he was the first staff photographer to be appointed to the Sunday Mail and rose through the ranks to become picture editor.
Andy, a keen golfer, moved back to the Record as picture editor in 1986, later leaving to go freelance.
I was responding to @Mendel's post, which suggested that the photo editor was the one with contact information for "Russell" and the person anyone interested in printing the photographs would be directed to. That seems quite plausible—at least someone in the photo department would need to have "Russell's" details. Otherwise, the "c/o Daily Record" notation would be absolutely useless. If that's the case, then Mr. Allen had a direct connection to the photographer.Unless anyone here has inside knowledge of how the Daily Record organised payments to their sources in 1990, I'm not sure we can assume that Allan would be "...the one who would make sure the money was passed...", or that any such payment would be in cas
I don't see him inquiring with the MoD if he already knew the photos to be a hoax. There'd be no reason to.Allen himself being involved in creating the photographs
A copyright notice like that is something you'd expect on a press photograph, not on an image sent to the MoD for investigation.
the whole thing sounds more like a private investigation conducted by Allen.
-And Craig Lindsay's account, and the MoD minute and suggested advice for the minister responsible for the Air Force, which were released to the National Archives.Given that we have no official records of the Daily Record ever being directly involved in this case—aside from the envelope the photograph was stored in
(1) If he was concerned, "Russell" could have had copies made himself.First of all, why on earth would "Russell" risk sending them to Allen, knowing they could disappear? Without the negatives, he'd be left with nothing.
-Andrew Robinson's analysis of the photo, version 5.0, June 2024 PDF attached to this MB post.External Quote:The Daily Record had facilities for copying prints and negatives...
Andreas old chap, you can't imply that someone handing over negatives is odd, and also say that asking for the negatives is the first thing you'd do!Perhaps I'm thinking too much like a skeptical UFO investigator, since asking for the entire roll of film or the untouched SD card is the first thing you do when investigating a case.
I don't see how the Official Secrets Act can be invoked, particularly 30 years after the fact. Even if the same Russell that took the photo now works at the MoD, so what. He wasn't working for the MoD 30 years ago and did nothing wrong taking the photo near a public highway.
The photo was in Mendel's subsequent post but will try and avoid links in future.can you post the photo so we dont have to click that unknown link? thanks!
can you quote the relevant bit so we dont have to click that link.
I don't see him inquiring with the MoD if he already knew the photos to be a hoax. There'd be no reason to.
The narrative is this:
• newspaper gets pictures offered
• newspaper asks MoD: are these genuine?
• MoD says: we don't think so
• newspaper decides not to print fake photos
I find this plausible.
Following on - and yes the info we have available has become declassified and in the public domain but confirming he was the photographer or elaborating on the circumstances could still be considered additional information and therefore a breach.
dont avoid links! all data embedded in thread should have an accompanying link/source. (even Mendels input).The photo was in Mendel's subsequent post but will try and avoid links in future.
Article: Posting source links to back up statements is a must on Metabunk. Statements made without a linked source, and especial statements that paraphrase a source, can be very misleading and will likely be deleted.
But while links are very important, they must be treated as additional references and not stand-alone content, so any content in the link that you refer to must also be in your post, quoted using "ex" tags.
If the information is visual, then screen grabs of relevant images must also be included in your comment
He did nothing wrong at the time but the moment he signed the act if he either came across the file or was shown it he would not be able to say anything about it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_lawExternal Quote:
In the United Kingdom, ex post facto laws are permitted by virtue of the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. Historically, all acts of Parliament before 1793 were ex post facto legislation, inasmuch as their date of effect was the first day of the session in which they were passed. This situation was rectified by the Acts of Parliament (Commencement) Act 1793.
Retrospective criminal laws are prohibited by Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights, to which the United Kingdom is a signatory, but some legal authorities have stated their opinion that parliamentary sovereignty takes priority even over this.[38][39]
On what do you base the MOD saying they don't think so ?
The evidence suggest they took them seriously and preparing a press release for if they are published indicates they took a different view, at least internally.
It's all just speculation, of course, but I can think of several possible reasons. Maybe he wanted to see if he could fool the military, maybe it was a bet among colleagues, or maybe he believed a statement from the MoD would give the story credibility. (After all, government involvement and cover-ups are a dream scenario for any UFO hoaxer.) But in the end, it doesn't really matter—we have no way of knowing what was actually going on anyway.I don't see him inquiring with the MoD if he already knew the photos to be a hoax. There'd be no reason to.
Yes, indeed. However, it's often claimed that the photo sent to Lindsay was made specifically for him.But the photo was originally sent to the Daily Record. It was in the hands of the press.
Yes, perhaps. But if that's the case, then we're adding yet another layer to the story—another step in the handling of the photographs and another possible method for concealing flaws or details that could expose a hoax. The idea of duplicated negatives seems a bit far-fetched to me. And besides, if the negatives sent to the MoD were just duplicates, why did they request them back after the investigation?Maybe they provided "Russell" with duplicate negatives. -Admittedly supposition.
Haha, well, asking to see the negatives isn't quite the same as asking to keep them and do whatever you want with them.Andreas old chap, you can't imply that someone handing over negatives is odd, and also say that asking for the negatives is the first thing you'd do!![]()
These speculations by Clarke sound absolutely ridiculous to me. The most obvious explanation is that the editors found the story dubious and the photos fake. Honestly, if I sent a few blurry "UFO photos" to a reputable newspaper today, I highly doubt they'd be published. (That's what NewsNation is for.) People often assume old documents are more reliable than contemporary ones, but a hoax is a hoax—no matter when it was orchestrated. And the Calvine case needs government involvement to be interesting. Without the claims of military cover-ups and secrecy, all we're left with is a blurry, easily faked photograph that only the most fanatical ET enthusiasts would take seriously.Clarke's other avenue of evidence is again the absence of evidence in the form of the photo(s) never being published. He speculates about a possible D-notice from the MoD, squashing the story and photos, but provides no real evidence for this as I remember. And a D-notice is counter to what is in the actual MoD memo that does exist. Rather than issueing a D-notice, the MoD was anticipating the possible publication of the photos:
That's certainly a possibility, but if that's the case, it's hard to explain the "…c/o Daily Record" written on the back of Lindsay's copy.There was no need for the Daily Record to make Linsday a print to fax to London, he already had one and they had no negatives to make a print from.
Potentially possible, but I don't think it applies in this case. Basically I agree with your (@NorCal Dave) take on this.A violation of Ex Post Facto it would seem, which may be possible in the UK?
I think you're absolutely right @Chundered if "Russell" (or anyone else for that matter) works/ worked for the Ministry of Defence and found "new", as in not already in the public realm, material about the Calvine sighting through their work, particularly if it were marked "Restricted" or a higher classification.He did nothing wrong at the time but the moment he signed the act if he either came across the file or was shown it he would not be able to say anything about it.
I know there's no general statute of limitations in the UK, but it's hard to believe anyone would be prosecuted for a minor offense after 35 years. I'm not familiar with UK law and practice, but the idea of convicting a poacher or someone who stole a car decades ago seems extremely far-fetched. I can think of a million reasons why "Russell" wouldn't come forward, but fearing consequences for a petty crime connected to the "encounter" isn't one of them.Equally, if the whole thing's a hoax, the hoaxers didn't waste police time (an offence in the UK) and they didn't cause undue public alarm or cause any damage; I'm sure there are people in responsible jobs who've done worse!
And one thing I've never really understood—does the MoD even know the identity of the person Lindsay spoke to? (Obviously we're in no position to know if he's the actual photographer/"witness".) It's often said that "if only the MoD opened their files," we'd get answers, but would we? In the documents we do have, the witness's name is redacted. Unmasking it would likely just reveal the name Kevin Russell. And even if it turned out to be another name, what difference would it make? It would still just be a name.
That sounds like a plausible explanation—far more believable than the idea that the military prevented the article from being published. And frankly, isn't it entirely possible that Allan, being an experienced photographer, was able to spot the hoax? After all, he had access to all six negatives. It might have been as simple as someone at the desk asking for his opinion, and him responding with something like, "Well, I could recreate these in a couple of hours." And then the story was dropped.I've speculated before, that by the time the MoD had looked at the photos and created the memo for questions, someone from the Daily Record may have actually gone up to Calvine or Pitlochry or wherever the Atholl Palace Hotel was located, and after a bit of actual reporting, found the story to be full of holes and they passed on publishing the photos.
Everything about the backstory seems highly unclear. And how much trust should we place in a three-decade-old recollection from Lindsay? If he had made notes and kept them with the photograph, that would be a different story.Was it ever said whether the two chefs who allegedly saw this craft and took the pics, went hiking directly after their shift at the hotel?
Was it ever said whether the two chefs who allegedly saw this craft and took the pics, went hiking directly after their shift at the hotel?
This is really important to keep in mind when discussing the Calvine case. We have the handwritten memorandum, which contains very few details, and then we have Lindsay's recollections—two completely different things.The handwritten MoD notes from the time make no mention of any of this. The entire backstory is just Linsday's 30-year-old recollections of a 10 minute phone call back in 1990. There is nothing more and no specific details like what you're asking for. Just Linsday's memories, which in the case of the hotel he remembered, may be wrong.