Mendel
Senior Member.
Gotta find a kite-shaped bug first.
But that's not the point. Tape or bug, neither is a camera artifact.
Claim: Original Calvine UFO Photo
- Thread starter Mick West
- Start date
But that's not the point. Tape or bug, neither is a camera artifact.
JMartJr
Senior Member.
If the shape is caused by the camera, as in Mick's example, it isenough of a camera artifact for me! ^_^
Mendel
Senior Member.
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.
JMartJr
Senior Member.
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.
Scaramanga
Senior Member
Well....that's a far cry from me being told, a few posts back, that any such thing was 'impossible'.
Now that we have established that dark bokeh does indeed exist...perhaps it is not impossible that some mechanism exists to make it darker.
Mendel
Senior Member.
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".
It's i m p o s s i b l e that the Calvine diamond UFO is a camera artifact.
You have less of of a case for this than the reflection theorists have for theirs, but again you do not have a single example that comes even close to demonstrating your claim.
Scaramanga
Senior Member
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.
JMartJr
Senior Member.
Easiest way to settle it would be to find or create an example.
NorCal Dave
Senior Member.
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.
The only Kevin Russell that Clarke's team has been able to track down of the right age and fits the description of a seasonal worker at the right time and place, claims no knowledge of the photo. 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. Linsday may have misheard or misremembered the name, or the witness on the phone was using an alias, possibly of a co-worker who was unaware of it. The only thing linking a Kevin Russell to the photo is the name Linsday supposedly heard over the phone. The other supposed witness was never named.
The entire backstory is straight from Linsday and Linsday only. He is the only source. The anonymous Intell guys Clarke claims spoke to the witness at a later date, tells a completely different story involving poaching.
There's no telling who took this photo.
External Quote:
I would argue many on the more skeptical side have done the work to show how it could be hoaxed. At least creating examples that demonstrate a very similar photograph can be generated with simple items and techniques, all in camera. No manipulation needed. Is it proof that the photo was a hoax? No. But we know hoaxed UFO photos are a thing. We know hoaxed UFO photos with this particular meme of jet, UFO and a nature framed sky was a thing at the time.
If it's a reflection of some kind or a mountain in the fog, at least we know rocks in ponds are real and they can create reflections. Mountains in the fog are real. There is nothing, besides this 1 photo, to suggest diamond shaped anti-gravity aircraft are or were real. And I don't see where Clarke and his team have done anything to suggest otherwise.
Skeptics have suggested the photo is a hoax and have gone on to create similar photos, thus at least bolstering the idea. Clarke and Robinson have suggested the photo depicts a 30m, or larger, top secret floating aircraft that may defy gravity in an unknown way and just left it at that. It's up to others to prove it was not a 30m secret aircraft.
In Clarke's various writings I think there is some mention of the Aurora flap of the '90s. But even if real, and it likely wasn't, Aurora was a supposed follow up to the SR71 program. A very fast, high altitude, advanced aircraft that created a "pulsing roar" due to its external combustion system. Other than a vaguely diamond shape if one squinted at speculative drawings, it would have behaved nothing like what was supposedly was photographed in Calvine:
Clake's team fail to uncover anything that could be the Calvine aircraft or its antecedents. Even if the craft were still classified for some reason, technology doesn't occur in a vacuum. There would be something that leads to it. The SR71 or F35 still follow from the Wright Flyer. The claim seems to be that sense there is no evidence of this craft, apart from the photo, it must be super-secret. The lack of evidence for it is evidence it's secret.
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:
One is forced to speculate on possibilities:
This memo was issued before the D-notice and is meaningless.
The D-notice was issued by higher ups and the people issuing this memo were in the dark about it.
Regardless, the D-notice is still classified.
Clarke hints that the publisher of the Daily Record was connected to the D-notice advisory board or something and the D-notice was issued off the books or invoked on a voluntarily basis by the publisher as a sign of patriotism.
It's just layers of speculation, with no real evidence. And the skeptic is asked to prove it wrong.
I can come up with theories too. How about his: Linsday is the source, if not the creator of the photo. The basic story, according to Linsday because he is the only source for any of this, goes like this:
The Daily Record contacted Linsday, the Public Relations person at the RAF Pitreavie(sp?) office saying they have been sent photographs and/or negatives of a UFO from Calvine and wanted a comment. Linsday asked for a copy and was sent one the next day which he then made a paper copy of so he could fax it to London. London then asked for the prints and/or negatives and askes the Linsday to look into it. He gets the contact info from the Daily Record, while the paper then sent of the 6(?) prints and negatives to the London MoD office. Linsday then calls the Atholl Palace hotel and, presumably, spoke to Kevin Russell. Russell tells the now familiar story of he and his buddy hiking after work and seeing the silent floating UFO with Harriers buzzing around and it then shot up into the sky. Linsday just held on to the photo the Daily Record had made for him so he had it 30 years later.
I would assume these are the notes taken at the time or soon after, either by Linsday or an admin of some sort:
I've inserted Linsday and Russell's names where it seems they would go. However, take a look at the "Additional Information" paragraph. It says a number of photos were "passed to RAF Pitreavie AND Scottish Daily Record" and that "negatives THEN passed to the Daily Record". This is a different timeline. This suggests the photos originally arrived at the Daily Record AND the RAF office first and at the same time. AFTER the photos had arrived, THEN the negatives were passed to the Daily Record.
Now one can argue this is just some quick handwritten notes, likely penned by an admin, based on Linsday account of events and interview with the witness. As such, it's somewhat inaccurate and jumbled. However, it is a primary source from the time of the event from official archives.
The photo was supposedly taken on August 4th. The official memo concerning the photo(s) generated AFTER the MoD London office had received the photos/negatives and studied them was dated September 14:
There is no indication when the handwritten notes were compiled, however the MoD memo makes mention of September 10:
What's not clear is whether the London or Pitreavie(sp?) office received the photos on this date, but it does limit the time between the supposed event and Linsday and/or the Daily Record getting the photos. There is a 6-day window at the longest if the 10th is when the photos showed up at the Pitreavie office, less than that if the 10th is when the photos showed up in London. That means the handwritten notes are very close the happenings described. Of note, Linsday in his interview with Clarke claims he typed up a report to send to London. So, either these handwritten ones are additional notes, or Linsday is misremembering.
IF the handwritten notes are accurate versus Linsday's 30-year recollections, the Pitreavie office received or had the photos while the Daily Record did. Neither the RAF office nor the Daily Record had any negatives at that point. 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.
What if Linsday sent the photos? He is the sole source of the backstory about the photos. He had the only copy of the photos. He had them on hand or sent them to his own office and the Daily Record. He included a "contact" that he supposedly interviewed. There is no record of the Daily Record ever interviewing anyone. There was no D-notice to conceal the aircraft in the photo. It was never published because the Daily Record couldn't track down the supposed source, Russell. Linsday told Clarke something like "I've been waiting 30 years for you to show up" in reference to his photo he had kept.
It's as good a theory as a secret US aircraft with no evidence
.
deirdre
Senior Member.
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.
not only does Robinson/Clark/Linsay not own copyright (although i do think you should take "russell" off and just use "unknown") but if he sues you it seems your country, which i believe you said youre from, has what we in the states call "Slapp" laws. you could actually make a few thousand dollars profit if he sues you with malicious intent (and he has to pay your lawyer fees, so don't fret).
(i know a guy who made like 25k over his lawyers fees for a slapp suit against him) and his lawyer kept him anonymous.
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]
the worst that happens is they sue because Robinson DID actually invent a new fake Calvine photograph and they have to prove that in court. In which case you get famous for the exposure AND likely they will still pay your lawyer fees because you honestly had no way of knowing they blatantly lied to you about the author of the photograph.
Mendel
Senior Member.
[deleted]
My conspiracy theory is that the Kevin Russell whom Lindsay found is in fact the original photographer, and he sold/assigned the copyright in the picture to Lindsay on condition of anonymity, and now Lindsay holds the copyright but can't prove it to us.
(In European copyright law, that's not legally possible, but can it work in the UK? I'm not sure.)
My conspiracy theory is that the Kevin Russell whom Lindsay found is in fact the original photographer, and he sold/assigned the copyright in the picture to Lindsay on condition of anonymity, and now Lindsay holds the copyright but can't prove it to us.
(In European copyright law, that's not legally possible, but can it work in the UK? I'm not sure.)
Last edited:
JMartJr
Senior Member.
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.
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. I believe there is also an image online of the back of the photo, as opposed to an image of the back added as a caption here, so will try and find.
Whilst Kevin Russell may be a common name what are the chances of someone with that name and being the right age working as a photo analyst at the MOD. 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.
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
https://linktr.ee/anthology.co.uk?lt_utm_source=lt_admin_share_link#389544353
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.
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? There's no inventory number, no reference to an employee to contact for more information—nothing that would actually help someone track him down.
NorCal Dave
Senior Member.
Yeah, I messed up there. My bad
.What I meant was one of the MoD offices received the photos on September 10 and the official memo was issued on the 14th, so it was a 4-6 day window, maybe a bit more, between the photos arriving and the memo being issued, depending on which office is being referred to on the 10th.
If the 10th is when MoD London received the photos from the Daily Record, then it would appear MoD Pitreavie received the photos a few days before that according to Linsday's testimony or maybe a few more days if the handwritten memo is correct. I was trying to point out the handwritten memo was likely produced very close to when the events at the Pitreavie office happened, not the UFO being photographed.
If the 10th refers to when Linsday's story of the Daily Record giving him the photo we now have occurred, that only leaves 4 days for the photos and negatives to be mailed to London where they are then studied and the official memo issued. I don't know about UK mail in those days, but I guess it's possible. Either way, the handwritten memo was likely created very close or during the events and could be considered a primary source. And it's a somewhat different description from what Linsday shares in interviews.
It also shows that our photographer may have sat on these photos for a up to a month. Possibly because they didn't know yet what they had. Here in the states, 1-hour developing was certainly available, but for an up charge, but 2-3 developing was common. Ex-member Rory also suggested that, as the envelope used to mail the prints and negatives to the MoD London contained the name of reporter from a smaller paper, maybe they photos had first been offered elsewhere (post #41):
How do you figure? The idea that the object is a super-secret aircraft adds a level of cloak & dagger that just hypes the story up more.
IF Kevin Russell, or anyone else, managed to photograph a top-secret US aircraft after sneaking into Groom Lake/Area 51 illegally, then sure they might be in trouble, although 30 years later it might not be all that big of a deal. But IF any of this story is remotely true, this secret US aircraft was buzzing the A9 or close to it in a popular hiking area. It's fair game.
I don't see how anyone could get in trouble for taking some photos of something flying around in plain site during the day near a public highway. In the old Soviet Union, maybe. IF this was some sort of operational breach of secrecy, it's hardly the fault of the photographer.
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.
Now I could argue that the photograph was actually taken on restricted secret air base of some sort and that our photographer sneaked onto illegally and thus would have been in trouble. But that's a completely different story than we've been given. And I'm still not sure it would matter much 30 years later.
The inability to find this supposed Russell is, I think, a hole in the story. IF it was some sort of secret aircraft, they would have remembered that, and it was the fault of the aircraft operator for being where it could be photographed. No harm in coming forward.
If it was some sort of hoax, model, reflections or otherwise, maybe they're embarrassed by it now. Seems like just coming out and saying they were young and dumb and it was all for not anyway as they were never published wouldn't be a big deal. Especially in today's world, where any embarrassing act is a ticket to notoriety. It is possible they are just very private.
Maybe they forgot about it:
Maybe, but it wasn't a round of Ding-Dong-Ditch in the local hamlet. More like "remember the time we faked a UFO photo and tried selling it to the paper and the MoD rang us up? That was a gas!" I just think they'd remember it.
Last edited:
deirdre
Senior Member.
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.
Mendel
Senior Member.
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?
John J.
Senior Member.
The picture editor at the time was Mr Andy Allan.
David Clarke speculated that Allan wrote the "Copyright Kevin Russell":
(From David Clarke's blog).
Andy Allan died in 2012 at the age of 63, so he'd probably have been 41 at the time of the Calvine photos;
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/picture-editor-andy-allan-951703,
"PICTURE EDITOR ANDY ALLAN", Daily Record, 30 June 2012.
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:
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 cash.
Last edited:
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.
But I still don't fully understand the context of the copyright claim written on Lindsay's photograph. As far as we know, the Daily Record never purchased the rights to the Calvine photos. Yet, the newspaper—or at least an employee—took enough interest in the case to contact the MoD for more information. According to Clarke, that person was Allen.
Okay, let's assume that's true. Allen, as someone who worked professionally with photographs, was fascinated by the "UFO photos" and wanted to figure out what they really were. If Clarke is right and it was Allen who contacted the MoD and made the copy sent to Lindsay, then it's not far-fetched to assume he was also the one who wrote the copyright claim in red marker. But why would he do that? A copyright notice like that is something you'd expect on a press photograph, not on an image sent to the MoD for investigation. They already had all the necessary contact information related to the case.
The real issue here is the handling of the original negatives. Allen apparently had them at some point, since, according to Clarke, he was the one who sent them to the MoD. (And obviously, he used them when making the copy for Lindsay.) But this raises a lot of questions. 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. (He allegedly took the pictures of a lifetime but didn't care about keeping them safe?!) And if the Daily Record never bought the rights to the photos, it's hard to believe Allen would have sent them to the MoD without "Russell's" permission. It's often suggested that "Russell" must have been surprised when the MoD called with questions, but that's just speculation. Sending the negatives away without the photographer's approval seems highly unlikely.
Then there's the claim that the negatives were never returned to the Daily Record—but why would they be? Since the newspaper didn't legally own them, they would most likely have been sent back to Allen, who would have logically returned them to "Russell."
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—the whole thing sounds more like a private investigation conducted by Allen. Maybe he had a personal interest in the paranormal, or maybe he didn't—who knows? But this could point to either someone playing a prank on Allen or Allen himself being involved in creating the photographs. (He did work in the photo department, and he did have access to professional photo equipment. And it was also probably he who wrote the name Russell, a person no one to this day have been able to identify or verify.) That would certainly explain some of the stranger twists in this story.
I don't want to accuse anyone, especially not someone who is no longer around to defend himself. But when a person professionally working with photographs plays such a central role in a case like this, it's hard not to raise an eyebrow.
Mendel
Senior Member.
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.
John J.
Senior Member.
But the photo was originally sent to the Daily Record. It was in the hands of the press.
I won't pretend to know how these things are done, but it doesn't strike me as odd that a newspaper picture editor might use a chinagraph pencil to mark up a photo- I'd guess that might have been common practice for submitted photos which had yet to be accepted for publication (that is, where the photographer still had copyright).
We don't know (IIRC) who at the Daily Record decided to send the picture to Craig Lindsay (remembering Allan was a picture editor, not a feature editor).
Lindsay was working as a press officer at RAF Pitreavie Castle. He might have been known to/ been in the contact book of the Daily Record.
Clarke states Allan contacted Craig Lindsay about the photos and forwarded "our" photo as the best example; Lindsay then contacted the Ministry of Defence (maybe he first asked the opinion of service personnel at Pitreavie Castle; it would seem sensible but I don't recall him saying he did).
It was because of Lindsay's contact that the MoD requested the photos/ negatives, and the Daily Record acquired and forwarded them.
The Daily Record was (is) a tabloid* newspaper, and not above a bit of sensationalism. Other UK tabloids have led with UFO stories (though not frequently). Maybe the Daily Record decided to do some due diligence before running the Calvine story.
Andy Allan was the senior picture editor at the Daily Record so it's not surprising that he was involved in dealing with pictures sent in for publication. Any pictures.
-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.
(1) If he was concerned, "Russell" could have had copies made himself.
(2)
-Andrew Robinson's analysis of the photo, version 5.0, June 2024 PDF attached to this MB post.External Quote:
Maybe they provided "Russell" with duplicate negatives. -Admittedly supposition.
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!
That's my sort of logic.
D)_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
*"Tabloid" not just in format but in the UK cultural sense.
Last edited:
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.
If he is the same person there is likely a link between him becoming an employee and taking the photo and if the MOD had any interest in closing the lid some scenario involving the act is very likely.
Or they were that short of analysts and that impressed by the photos (hoax) they offered him a job. Or he became that interested in the field after taking (faking) them he became an expert and when applying the MOD didn't realise the connection. Or he is not connected at all and the right name and age is a coincidence.
The photo was in Mendel's subsequent post but will try and avoid links in future.
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.
John J.
Senior Member.
It wouldn't be a breach of the OSA.
If the 1990 photographer chose to reveal his identity, it wouldn't be seen as "...prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State".
There's never been any suggestion that the claimed witnesses broke any laws by photographing whatever they photographed.
deirdre
Senior Member.
dont avoid links! all data embedded in thread should have an accompanying link/source. (even Mendels input).
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
NorCal Dave
Senior Member.
Really? That seems odd. A violation of Ex Post Facto it would seem, which may be possible in the UK?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_lawExternal Quote:
I'm no lawyer, nor a barrister, but it seems pretty unlikely. You're suggesting Mr. Russell legally took a photo along a public road during the day of a super-secret aircraft that was buzzing the A9, and now 30 years later the MoD will punish him for admitting that because he works for the MoD? Even IF this is a super-secret aircraft, I just don't see how that works. Just saying "Yeah, I took the photo" in no way amounts to him revealing what the actual object is, assuming he even knows. The object revealed itself, not Russell.
I don't see where he can get in trouble saying "I took that photo 30 years ago. I don't know what it is and still don't". Maybe saying "I took that photo 30 years ago, now I know it's an Aurora TRB3 SR75 that is still classified" is a bit different.
Again, I think this insistence by Clarke that this is some sort of still classified super-secret US aircraft just adds to the cloak & dagger aspect. It makes an odd photo much more mysterious, furtive and somewhat dangerous. It allows for speculation like this about Russell being subject to legal entanglements should he mention a 30-year-old photo. Since Russell hasn't come forward, it's because he can't come forward. If he can't come forward, then he must have photographed a super-secret aircraft. Once again, the absence of evidence becomes evidence of the claim.
All that's missing is the MiBs.
Taking seriously the fact that a large tabloid is going to publish UFO photo that may contain an RAF aircraft (Harrier) is different from taking the UFO seriously. The memo is pretty clear. They looked at the photos, thought the aircraft looked like a Harrier and they didn't know what the rest of it was. Two of Clarke's on the record sources from the time, Baldwin and Spiers, have said the department thought it was a spoof or hoax.
The memo merely lays out what to say if anyone is asked about the photo, should the Daily Record run them, including the internal conclusion that there were no Harriers operating in the area at the time. That doesn't mean they thought it was a photo of a real UFO or even secret aircraft, just that the tabloid may publish the photos.
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.
Yes, indeed. However, it's often claimed that the photo sent to Lindsay was made specifically for him.
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?
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.
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.
John J.
Senior Member.
Potentially possible, but I don't think it applies in this case. Basically I agree with your (@NorCal Dave) take on this.
"Parliamentary Sovereignty" is the idea that Parliament- in reality nowadays, the House of Commons (elected Members of Parliament)- can pass any law they want. New legislation always overrides older legislation if they conflict.
I can't see Parliament bothering to work on an Act (legislation) just to criminalise the (claimed) activities of the (claimed) witnesses back in 1990; and anyway, as your source says, this would contravene the European Convention on Human Rights, which the current UK government wouldn't want to do.
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.
I think this is very unlikely (though in fairness I guess we can't rule it out).
"Our" Calvine photo came from Craig Lindsay, and is now in the possession of Sheffield Hallam University (IIRC). Mr Lindsay hasn't been interviewed by police or whoever as far as we know, and Sheffield Hallam hasn't been raided by the powers that be.
The photo appears to be the basis of the transparencies that the Ministry of Defence made.
The (claimed) witness account (possibly written by Lindsay), and Loose Minute D/Sec(AS)12/2, 14 September 1990 to the Assistant Private Secretary, Under Secretary of State (Air Force), were released to the UK National Archives, reference DEFE 24/1940/1, in 2008. They can be viewed by anyone (though you have to sign in), https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C10130124. -All the Calvine stuff in it has already been posted here.
Annoyingly I can't find the ref. for the MoD transparencies, but they are accessible from the National Archives too.
These documents, plus Lindsay's photo, are pretty much all the evidence of the 1990 claim made via the Daily Record and Craig Lindsay (with the important exception of the other 5 photos and original negatives).
The photo is supposedly the clearest of the "UFO". Its activity (hovering, rapid ascent) plus presence of a Harrier are described in the National Archives material.
As that material has been accessible to the public since October 2008, I can't see any serious problems in Russell (or whoever the photographer was) owning up to being the photographer. If the sighting/ photos were of a real flying object, any information that the witness account might contain about the craft has been in the public realm for 16-and-a-half years. Not sure how long the transparencies have been publicly available (they weren't in DEFE 24/1940/1) but certainly several years.
The photo itself has been getting considerable publicity for about 2-and-a-half years.
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!
Last edited:
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.
People who refuse to accept that the Calvine incident was a hoax tend to come up with one elaborate theory after another to explain why "Russell" has never stepped forward. A far more plausible explanation? He's dead, he doesn't want public attention, or he moved somewhere else years ago and has no idea his old prank has turned into a so-called mystery.
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.
NorCal Dave
Senior Member.
Indeed. Russell is just a name given to either the Daily Record and/or Linsday. If the normal story is accurate, it would appear someone at the Daily Record, possibly the photo editor Allen, wrote the name Kevin Russell on the back of the photo before sending it to Linsday. Presumably that was the name given to the Daily Record with the photos.
Linsday then phones the Atholl Palace Hotel and asks for a "Kevin Russell" and supposedly, he comes on the line and gives the familiar back story to Linsday. Nobody ever sees or meets this guy as far as I can tell. I don't remember if Linsday ever give any indication that the Daily Record knew of or passed the backstory onto him before he rang up the Hotel and spoke to "Russell".
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.
Side note, I believe when Clarke tracked down a Kevin Russell at the right age that worked seasonally in the area, he was at the Pitlochry Hotel, not the Atholl Palace as Linsday remembered it.
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.
jackfrostvc
Senior Member
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?
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.
NorCal Dave
Senior Member.
Like @Andreas said above, the whole story is a bit vague, like most UFO stories.
It seems if they were even real people and there was really 2 of them, they likely weren't chefs but more like porters or dishwashers or other seasonal type workers just earning money in the summer vacation season. It's not even clear which hotel they supposedly worked at with Linsday remembering the Athol Palace Hotel but Clarke finding a Russell at the Pitlochry Hotel. The story is just they went out "after work", whatever that means, with the photos supposedly taken around 9:00pm. That's it.
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.
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 memorandum confirms that Lindsay spoke to someone who claimed to have seen "a diamond-shaped UFO." (Interesting choice of words, by the way—UFO. I assume that's what "Russell" called it, rather than a plane, craft, or anything else. That alone suggests an interest in sci-fi and the paranormal.) So far, so good. (Also worth noting: the other witness is described as "unidentified." Apparently, "Russell" didn't want to give his name. How convenient!)
But most of the other details are based on decades-old recollections. We know that memory is notoriously unreliable. Even if Lindsay is being completely truthful to the best of his knowledge, we should take much of it with a grain of salt. If someone asked me to recall what someone told me 35 years ago, I'd struggle to remember anything beyond the general story. If the event had been completely unremarkable, he would obviously have forgotten all about it. In this case, however, Lindsay apparently found the photos intriguing enough to remember the interview. I get that. But no one can convince me he remembers specifics like the exact time or other small details.
Similar threads
