Claim: Original Calvine UFO Photo

[jackfrostvc]

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.

Hmmm, do you have a reference for where it's said they went out "after work"?

The reason I asked, is that I had gone out with a chef for 7 years, it's a gruelling job, and I believe she was often very tired.
Your on your feet all day in a hot kitchen dashing around . And the hours can be very long.

I can't imagine a chef, let alone two chefs deciding to go out for a hike after their shift. Not impossible of course.
I just don't see it

 

[John J.]

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.

Re. the backstory, the Daily Record not running the story, the "missing" photos/ negatives and the claimed witnesses not coming forward; this is a bit of conjecture: Conjecture is rightly frowned upon here, so I'll call it a hypothesis :

(1) The Calvine photo is a deliberate hoax by at least one unidentified person, possibly including a young man working locally as per the original claim.

(2) Although it wasn't documented in the file in the National Archives, the Ministry of Defence conclusions about the photo (diamond not identified, plane(s) probably Harrier, no Harriers in that area at that time) and the photographic materials are returned to the Record.
The MoD notifies the civil servant assisting the junior minister responsible for the RAF, primarily so he isn't "ambushed" by any questions if the Record runs the story- the minister not knowing (or, it might be implied, caring) about claims of an unidentified aircraft over Scotland might not be "good optics" politically. Copies are forwarded to two other departments. There is no record that they had any interest.

(3) Someone at the Record (maybe Andy Allen, who knows) contacts the photographer (or at least the person whose contact details they have): Can they go over the story again? Are they sure about the date, time and location? ("Yes".)

"-Ah, but we asked the Ministry of Defence, they say there weren't any Harriers in the area."
The photographer is on the spot and can't give a ready explanation. Mention of the Ministry of Defence sounds like the picture- and the photographer- might get a bit more official attention than was intended, and now he's worried.
His hesitation and/or confused/ insufficient reply speak volumes to the newspaper man, who has years of experience dealing with unsolicited submissions and claims, true and otherwise, from members of the public. Every week, if not most days.

The newspaper guy says words to the effect of
"We can't run this. We're not in the business of deceiving the Scottish people. If one of our competitors runs this, we'll be duty-bound to share what we know. If you want this stuff back, send an SAE",
and hangs up.

(4) The photographer/ claimant is under the firm impression that his hoax has been rumbled, and doesn't like the idea of officialdom being involved. He wishes he hadn't bothered.
He is unaware (or doesn't care by this time) that the diamond in the photo hasn't itself been debunked, and hasn't the experience to realise that the MoD is extremely unlikely to have any ongoing interest in him whatsoever.
He doesn't claim the photos, which after a couple of weeks or so are binned.

If he became aware of renewed interest in the photo in more recent years- The Sun newspaper story 0f 20 October 2020, a Channel 5 TV show- he might have considered coming forward, but perhaps had a (probably baseless) belief that The Daily Record or MoD would announce that the Calvine photo was a known hoax, and had reasons for not wanting to be associated with a hoax.

 

[deirdre]

Hmmm, do you have a reference for where it's said they went out "after work"?

that came from David Clarke https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...-glimpse-secret-Aurora-spy-plane-program.html

note: in MB search you can click the arrow after your term and chose "this thread" i just put in "hike". and "interview"

AUGUST 12, 2022 By David Clarke

"On August 4, 1990, two young men were working as chefs in a hotel in Pitlochry, a beautiful Highland Perthshire town, just outside the Cairngorms National Park in Scotland.
At 9pm, after a long day in a hot kitchen, they drove about 13 miles north along the A9 to Calvine, a spot on the edge of the Cairngorms, for a walk in the hills.
They hadn't gone far when they saw a huge, solid, diamond-shaped object, about 100ft long, hovering silently in the sky above them. Terrified, they hid in some bushes and looked up.
Minutes later, they heard the scream of a jet aircraft going north: In 1990, RAF Leuchars in Fife had two squadrons of Tornado fighters on 24-hour standby to intercept Russian intruder aircraft.
The jet came back and circled the 'thing' before heading off on its original course, as if the pilot had seen the object too and had come back for a closer look.
Eventually the two men stuck their camera out from where they were hiding and fired off six frames. At that point, the object shot vertically upwards and disappeared way, way up in to the sky."

i think from interviewing lindsay. Lindsay did give an interview 46 min in..

Source: https://youtu.be/IgekUVzMSCc?t=2814

 

[jackfrostvc]

@deirdre

From the article you quoted, it says that At 9pm, after they did a long day in the hot kitchen , they drove 13 miles to a place to hike at.

I mean, this is what I was talking about. From what I knew of my ex chef partner(in her 20's), I find it very very very hard to believe that she as an example would go out on a hike at 9pm after a long gruelling shift in a hot kitchen. Where you are on your feet all day dashing around. She was wrecked after her shifts from what I remember. I'd have to force her to shower before going to bed , because I couldn't stand the smell(imagine a mix of sweat, grease, garlic and prawns). And she'd complain because she was exhausted

 

[deirdre]

@deirdre

From the article you quoted, it says that At 9pm, after they did a long day in the hot kitchen , they drove 13 miles to a place to hike at.

I mean, this is what I was talking about. From what I knew of my ex chef partner, I find it very very very hard to believe that she as an example would go out on a hike at 9pm after a long gruelling shift in a hot kitchen. Where you are on your feet all day dashing around. She was wrecked after her shifts from what I remember. I'd have to force her to shower before going to bed , because I couldn't stand the smell(imagine a mix of sweat, grease, garlic and prawns). And she'd complain because she was exhausted

well its a 30 year memory (not that i heard lindsay say that himself as far as my recollection). but my recollection is they were like 19 or so. we used to go out partying after work and our favorite spot was up a steep hill maybe 1/4 of a mile.

maybe these guys were staying in a hostel that didnt allow drugs, and wanted to smoke a joint before they got there, so stopped off and just walked a bit away from the road to smoke a joint or drink some beers? <total speculation, but we really dont know the story so it could be anything really.

 

[jackfrostvc]

well its a 30 year memory (not that i heard lindsay say that himself as far as my recollection). but my recollection is they were like 19 or so. we used to go out partying after work and our favorite spot was up a steep hill maybe 1/4 of a mile.

maybe these guys were staying in a hostel that didnt allow drugs, and wanted to smoke a joint before they got there, so stopped off and just walked a bit away from the road to smoke a joint or drink some beers? <total speculation, but we really dont know the story so it could be anything really.

My partner was in her 20's for reference

I don't know if the hiking in this story is accurate, but that is brought up a number of times as to what they were doing. And is the scenario along with them having a camera to take the picture which I'm addressing
I also don't see how they could have gone to smoke some dope if they had a camera with them. It doesn't gell is what I'm saying. The story if true, would require them to have a camera with them ,.

 

[John J.]

I can't imagine a chef, let alone two chefs deciding to go out for a hike after their shift. Not impossible of course.
I just don't see it

I don't think we really know if the claimed witnesses were working that day, or if they were full-time.

There is no mention of the witnesses' work, or other circumstances, in the handwritten note (probably written by Craig Lindsay, though names were redacted) released as part of National Archives file DEFE 24/1940/1 (PDF below, PDF pages 35-37), and there's no mention of anything about the witnesses at all in the subsequent MoD minute.

As @deirdre says, it would seem the only other information we have about them (other than the rather dubious more recent claim about Royal Navy MiBs in a dark car, and the subsequent effects on the witnesses' behaviour, from a man who couldn't remember the witnesses' names) is from David Clarke's contact with Craig Lindsay, starting (I think) 2022.
Lindsay was recounting details from 32 years previously. IIRC Lindsay said that he spoke to someone with an English accent.

Two young men doing seasonal work might be more likely to be washer-uppers/ kitchen porters than chefs per se.
David Clarke might have been fleshing out the story a bit for the Daily Mail,
"Revealed after 32 years: The 'most spectacular UFO photo ever captured' - or the first glimpse of America's fabled top-secret Aurora spy plane program?", Clarke in the Mail, 20 August 2022. (He also describes Lindsay as an RAF officer, which I believe is incorrect). The Daily Mail hasn't got a great reputation for checking the accuracy of its material.

In February 2017, the English Wikipedia banned the use of the Daily Mail as a reliable source.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Mail
And our own @jdog,

I would also note that the Daily Mail is a credulous source when it comes to posting UFO claims

A lot of young people do arduous jobs and then take part in sports, go out on the town or follow other interests after work.

maybe these guys were staying in a hostel that didnt allow drugs, and wanted to smoke a joint before they got there, so stopped off and just walked a bit away from the road to smoke a joint or drink some beers?

Marijuana is illegal in the UK, but yes, they might have wanted to have a quiet toke. More likely sink a few tins away from work- I'd guess the hotel bars in Pitlochry aren't particularly cheap, and there's probably not that many young people for company; more committed hill-walkers and older couples there for the scenery and peace and quiet.
Who knows. I might write a screenplay, "Brokeback Calvine".

 

[Mendel]

If he became aware of renewed interest in the photo in more recent years- The Sun newspaper story 0f 20 October 2020, a Channel 5 TV show- he might have considered coming forward, but perhaps had a (probably baseless) belief that The Daily Record or MoD would announce that the Calvine photo was a known hoax, and had reasons for not wanting to be associated with a hoax.

If he never got the negatives back (or lost them), he might not even be able to prove he was the original photographer.

Who knows. I might write a screenplay, "Brokeback Calvine".

My headcanon is that they went to a lonely spot in the Cairngorns to take "artistic pictures", which would explain a) the camera and the b/w film, and b) the "poaching" cover story for why they can't show the rest of the film. Pure speculation, of course, and really only fits well with the "accidental UFO" hypotheses, not the prepared hoax.

 

[Andreas]

I don't know if the hiking in this story is accurate, but that is brought up a number of times as to what they were doing. And is the scenario along with them having a camera to take the picture which I'm addressing
I also don't see how they could have gone to smoke some dope if they had a camera with them. It doesn't gell is what I'm saying. The story if true, would require them to have a camera with them ,.

Agreed, the whole story sounds strange, but again, that's exactly what we'd expect from decades-old, fragmented recollections. We can't be sure the witness ever mentioned hiking. More likely, Lindsay was thinking back, remembering some young guy out in a well-known hiking spot and assuming, "Yeah, they were probably hiking."

My headcanon is that they went to a lonely spot in the Cairngorns to take "artistic pictures", which would explain a) the camera and the b/w film, and b) the "poaching" cover story for why they can't show the rest of the film. Pure speculation, of course, and really only fits well with the "accidental UFO" hypotheses, not the prepared hoax.

Could indeed be the case. But we have to remember that, as far as we know, the photographer didn't have to go far at all. He made sure there were no identifiable objects in the picture—no trees, buildings, or mountains that could give away the location. For all we know, the photo could have been taken in someone's backyard or even in a field behind a hostel where he potentially was staying.

All it would have taken was a single hilltop or a distant shed, and pinpointing the location would have at least been theoretically possible. But with the information we have from the photo, it's simply impossible.

 

[NorCal Dave]

My partner was in her 20's for reference

I don't know if the hiking in this story is accurate, but that is brought up a number of times as to what they were doing. And is the scenario along with them having a camera to take the picture which I'm addressing
I also don't see how they could have gone to smoke some dope if they had a camera with them. It doesn't gell is what I'm saying. The story if true, would require them to have a camera with them ,.

Me and my buddies were cooks at a Mexican place in our 20s. We would work 4-8 hour shifts in and around our collage schedules and we usually had energy to go fart around after work. We were all very churchy, so nothing to wild .

As to whether anyone involved was a chef or had been out hiking, it's all vague as hell like any UFO story. Clarke, and/or some editors somewhere, seem to have either created some details or there are other interviews with Linsday that include them. But for the rest of us, there are 3 sources. There are documents from the MoD, one handwritten memo and an official memo. They make little to NO mention of the backstory.

The ONLY other source for any of this is Linsday and there is one interview with him that we have access to. Linked below to start at the beginning of his interview (43:16). I suggest you watch it as it's only a few minutes long. This, as far as I know, is the entirety of the backstory. However, Clarke does say he edited it down, so maybe there are details missing that Clarke heard (bold by me):

43:01
craig received it and you also interviewed him while you were there now that was quite a
43:07
substantial interview but um i have edited it down to to kind of highlight the main points from the interview so

I'll note here, in the interview, Linsday makes it sound like he kinda got this whole going. He told the London office it was more interesting than anything he had seen before and he's the one that sent it to London. Once he had the photo, he was the instigator:

44:44
well this one is a bit more interesting than anything i've ever
44:49
scene and um i'll tell you what i'll fax it to you go

Linsday claimed they were English seasonal workers, dishwashers. I don't know where the "chefs" thing comes from:

46:46
as far as i can remember an english accent they were part of what you call it
46:52
holiday workers at the ethel (Athol) palace mainly washing dishes uh and for pocket money and that as far

As far as "hiking" it seems more like the drove up the road a bit and then went for a walk:

46:59
as their trip out that night was uh they parked the car they weren't
47:07
what he couldn't i can't remember now whether he said it was the longest i don't think it was terribly far but the
47:12
bits that i do remember was they went through a wood came to the edge of it climbed the barbed wire over the barbed wire fence
47:19
started to walk over moorland and then realized there was something in
47:25
the air above them or near to them and they thought this is

This is followed by his discussion of the witnesses hiding for several minutes while the UFO just hovered. Then a Harrier made a number of passes, counter-clock wise and took off. After a few more minutes the Harrier returned and circled some more, before heading off. At some point in this encounter, they stuck the camera up and shot off 6 photos. Linsday also speculates that the behavior of the aircraft suggested that the pilot had seen the UFO:

47:39
in bushes or behind trees or something in the wood and sat and looked at this thing which
47:45
just simply sat in the sky and um and asked do you know how big it was no
47:51
idea how big it was we didn't know whether it was close to us how far away it was or anything
47:56
but what was it after he reckoned two three minutes didn't time it
48:03
uh they heard the sound of a jet aircraft which went by going north
48:12
and a minute or two later they had the jet again
48:18
and it came back and it circled get this right anti-clockwise
48:26
three maybe four times and then headed off back in its original
48:32
course which suggests the pilot must have seen the same thing they so he must have seen something
48:38
and they waited another minute or two wondering what the hell to do and at that point they
48:45
at some point in this thing they sort of stuck the camera out behind wherever it was they were
48:50
hiding shot off it turned out to be six frames and um

The witness claimed the UFO made no noise and that was that:

49:13
it make and he said it didn't make any noise i said what do you mean didn't make any
49:19
it was silent no noise no noise at all nothing
49:24
and that was the end of the conversation

That's it. Unless there are a lot of details in Clarke's conversation with Linsday that he left out, this is the entire story. No chefs. Little to no hiking, more like a drive and a walk. No poaching. And no idea why they had a camera. According to Linsday, the witness was likely an English kid working seasonally as a dishwasher at the Athol Palace Hotel. I believe the Kevin Russell that Clarke tracked down was a Scottish kid the worked at the Pitlochry Hotel, so even when we do have some details, they don't line up.

Much of the details about the supposed 2 lads, is all speculation. Linsday makes no mention of why they had a camera. The idea that they were doing some landscape photography is all speculation from Robinson, the photo analyst, because he originally thought the photo was generated using the fancy, pricy, specialty B&W film, Ilford XP. But he later changed his mind and concluded the original was created with basic B&W film. Something that is contradictory to both MoD documents which state the photos were color.

Why they, assuming there was a "they", had a camera is pure conjecture, like much of the story. Same with the poaching claim. It's from a supposed former, but anonymous, military or intel person (Nick Pope anyone?) that claims to have interviewed the same witness. Really? And all we get is the poaching claim, something completely different from Linsday's claims.

If a bunch of the details that appear in the various articles are in edited portions of Linsday's interview, then shame on Clarke for omitting them. If a bunch of the details are "dramatic embellishments" based on Linsday's recollections, then double shame on whoever is embellishing.


Source: https://youtu.be/IgekUVzMSCc?si=MpzDnOxCkf08_b4d&t=2596

 

[Andreas]

The ONLY other source for any of this is Linsday and there is one interview with him that we have access to.

The interview is really interesting to listen to. Our dear Lindsay remembers a heck of a lot of details after three decades—he's even freely quoting some of the things that were said. Like most witnesses, he probably believes he's recounting exactly what happened. But anyone even slightly familiar with witness psychology knows it's not that simple.

 

[John J.]

The ONLY other source for any of this is Linsday and there is one interview with him that we have access to.

At approx. 53 mins 17 secs to 53 mins 30 seconds into the video, if I hear right Lindsay is saying that the London MoD chaps "mentioned" that JARIC had reviewed the photos/ negatives.
This would be the (UK) Joint Air Reconnaissance Intelligence Centre (1953-2012).
Much of what was JARIC's role is now performed by the National Centre for Geospatial Intelligence at RAF Wyton, Cambridgeshire, England.

There's a confusing and outdated Wikipedia article Defence Intelligence Fusion Centre which covers some of JARIC's history;
RAF Wyton's public webpage, https://www.raf.mod.uk/our-organisation/stations/raf-wyton/ is not very informative (perhaps understandably).
The webpage has brief descriptions of five units based at RAF Wyton:
Rather amusingly, the longest description is for the RAF Wyton Voluntary Band.

 

[Ann K]

Hmmm, do you have a reference for where it's said they went out "after work"?

The reason I asked, is that I had gone out with a chef for 7 years, it's a gruelling job, and I believe she was often very tired.
Your on your feet all day in a hot kitchen dashing around . And the hours can be very long.

I can't imagine a chef, let alone two chefs deciding to go out for a hike after their shift. Not impossible of course.
I just don't see it

When I was in college I worked a summer job in a resort hotel kitchen, and we partied almost every night after work. Ah, youth! Parties on the beach, sometimes skinny dipping, sometimes sneaking into the dance hall when big-name bands were playing, sometimes borrowing a boat and going out for night cruises.

There has also been some discussion earlier on this thread of whether they were technically "chefs" or just kitchen assistants of some sort. We really don't know how onerous their duties were, or whether they just worked the supper time shift.

 

[Andreas]

We really don't know how onerous their duties were, or whether they just worked the supper time shift.

Or if they even existed at all. Sure, Lindsay spoke to someone, but who and where remain unclear. I think we should take the story of the two seasonal workers with a grain of salt.

 

[JMartJr]

I think we should take the story of the two seasonal workers with a grain of salt.

Take the whole thing with a huge grain of salt. We have one pretty poor photo, which could have been faked several ways, existing pretty much in a vacuum because the only story associated with it is somewhere between second and fourth hand. It's evidentiary value is about as close to zero as it can get

 

[Andreas]

Take the whole thing with a huge grain of salt. We have one pretty poor photo, which could have been faked several ways, existing pretty much in a vacuum because the only story associated with it is somewhere between second and fourth hand. It's evidentiary value is about as close to zero as it can get

Amen! That's the whole point. We have a photo (and possibly five additional negatives). Nothing else.

 

[jackfrostvc]

In regards to some theories laid out and what technically would be required to achieve them.

- If this is a reflection, then I guess not much would be required of them to take to the spot other than a camera.

- If this were small objects hung from under the tree, then they would have to take the small objects also, easily done

- If this were things stuck to a glass pane, they would have to also bring the glass pane, in this case, how big a piece of glass is required to pull this photo off? @Andreas

 

[Mick West]

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

Sure, but are the US military going to risk their top-secret craft being concealed by the weather? Fly it less than a mile from a busy road and hope the mist does not lift?

 

[Andreas]

- If this were things stuck to a glass pane, they would have to also bring the glass pane, in this case, how big a piece of glass is required to pull this photo off?

Even if it was achieved using a piece of glass, "they" wouldn't necessarily have needed to bring anything at all. If the photo is a hoax, then the backstory likely is too, and we have no idea where it was actually taken—it could have been in someone's backyard for all we know.

I'd also like to add another possibility: a hoax created in the darkroom. All that would be required is some basic photography equipment and a bit of know-how.

 

[Giddierone]

Sure, but are the US military going to risk their top-secret craft being concealed by the weather? Fly it less than a mile from a busy road and hope the mist does not lift?

But that's assuming it's secret tech (and the right location etc.) My point was much narrower. Your Google Earth illustration isn't instructive because it lacks atmosphere. It's not so clear that whatever is at the marker would be clearly visible from the road and the town.

EDIT: this is a nice illustration.

Source: https://x.com/gunsnrosesgirl3/status/1882470738185330968

 

[jackfrostvc]

Even if it was achieved using a piece of glass, "they" wouldn't necessarily have needed to bring anything at all. If the photo is a hoax, then the backstory likely is too, and we have no idea where it was actually taken—it could have been in someone's backyard for all we know.

I'd also like to add another possibility: a hoax created in the darkroom. All that would be required is some basic photography equipment and a bit of know-how.

Understood, but I'd still like to know roughly how big a piece of glass would be required?

 

[Andreas]

Understood, but I'd still like to know roughly how big a piece of glass would be required?

I've experimented a bit with this technique. I started with a small piece of glass, roughly the size of a standard A4 sheet. It worked fairly well, but to achieve the right focus, I think a larger sheet is preferable. At the moment, I'm trying with glass from a poster frame, roughly 60 × 50 cm. We'll see how it goes.

 

[Andreas]

But that's assuming it's secret tech (and the right location etc.) My point was much narrower. Your Google Earth illustration isn't instructive because it lacks atmosphere. It's not so clear that whatever is at the marker would be clearly visible from the road and the town.

Sure, atmosphere and weather must be taken into consideration. But still, we can't ignore what we see in the photograph. Neither the "UFO" nor the "jet" appears to be covered in thick fog. If we go by Robinson's speculations, the jet is flying at a distance of approximately 750 meters. If the fog were thick enough to completely obscure a large craft hovering in the air, wouldn't it also hide the jet from the photographer? And is it reasonable to believe a pilot would perform a low-altitude flight under such conditions?

 

[Andreas]

Sure, but are the US military going to risk their top-secret craft being concealed by the weather? Fly it less than a mile from a busy road and hope the mist does not lift?

I just don't get the speculation about this being some secret military craft. Isn't that, after all, the least likely explanation? (I'm tempted to say impossible, but I know we shouldn't use such strong words.)

To me, the idea that it was a secret project sounds like something invented to keep an otherwise unbelievable story alive. (It was called a "ufo" in the original report, a word researchers like Clarke nowadays tries to avoid.) We have two main pieces of evidence in this case—the photograph and the handwritten PM. All other imaginative details and speculation are based on decades-old recollections and hearsay.

And when we look at the PM, the description of what happened rules out the possibility of this being a military craft. Neither in 1990 nor today has there been any large, diamond-shaped craft capable of hovering silently in midair for an extended period before "ascending vertically at high speed."

If this were a military craft, then the story told in the PM must be false. And if someone was willing to lie to the authorities during an interview, why should we trust the authenticity of the photograph? I'm sure the story in the PM is pure fiction—no doubt about that. But to me, that also strongly suggests the photograph is a pure hoax.

My point is this: we have a photograph that could be either fake or "real." Since both possibilities exist, the only way to determine the truth is by assessing the reliability of the photographer. And since the photographer cannot both be telling the truth and have captured a secret military craft, the idea that this was some classified U.S. project just doesn't make sense.

 

[JMartJr]

I just don't get the speculation about this being some secret military craft. Isn't that, after all, the least likely explanation?

I'd be willing to consider it for "second least likely."

(I'm tempted to say impossible, but I know we shouldn't use such strong words.)

We know the military exists, and that secret projects get tested, and that the military (like all human institutions" sometimes does stuff that seems dumb, at least from my point of view. The least likely explanation (or suite of them, the woo-ey stuff) requires things that are not known to actually exist.

 

[NorCal Dave]

We know the military exists, and that secret projects get tested, and that the military (like all human institutions" sometimes does stuff that seems dumb, at least from my point of view. The least likely explanation (or suite of them, the woo-ey stuff) requires things that are not known to actually exist.

Agreed, except maybe that we do not know that anything like this craft, as described, has or does exist. Secret programs sure, but most of the secret projects of the time are now known. The Predator, Reaper, F117, F22 B2 and so on. And again, they all have antecedents that were not secret at the time. They all follow up on the original Wright Flyer to some extent. There are no technological antecedents to what is described as an anti-gravity craft. None in the history of flight.

If there really was something so advanced and so secret and still decades ahead of any known military or current space craft, we're back to what is it doing along the A9 in Scotland? And if the US military was dumb enough to operate this still classified craft once in plain sight during the day thousands of miles from Area51/Groom Lake, a designated secret test site for such craft, why did it never happen again? They had to fly (float?) the thing there and back again. It seems it would have been making quite the tour.

I'll grant the possibility of some sort of balloon-thingy. Some radar reflectors have a diamond shape, so I guess one could speculate about a large radar reflecting balloon-thingy with a mixed up or hyped-up story. It could float silently and then ascend, just not shoot up and away as described. Maybe the "shooting up" was misperceived or just exaggerated to add a little sizzle. There is no doubt that someone tried to pass these photos off as a UFO to the press, so a little hyping would be expected.

Now where back to what kind of radar balloon that was flying over Scotland during a low-level training mission 35 years ago is still unaccounted for. Even if it were a 1 off failure, there'd be some record of it. If it were more common, it would therefore be more common.

I guess one last balloon related idea is just that, a balloon. In Linsday's recounting, for what that's worth, he does note the witness had no idea how big or how close the object was. An age-old conundrum for many UFO claims. Is it just a stray diamond shaped party balloon drifting in the breeze that happened to float near a low level training run allowing the photo that we see? I doubt it. I don't even know if diamond shaped party balloons were a thing in the late '80s, but we do know balloons exist and account for a number of UFO claims.

 

[Andreas]

I'd be willing to consider it for "second least likely."


We know the military exists, and that secret projects get tested, and that the military (like all human institutions" sometimes does stuff that seems dumb, at least from my point of view. The least likely explanation (or suite of them, the woo-ey stuff) requires things that are not known to actually exist.

Yes, we know the military exists, and we know they sometimes conduct secret tests. But we also know that anti-gravity craft behaving as the witness described do not exist.

 

[Andreas]

Maybe the "shooting up" was misperceived or just exaggerated to add a little sizzle. There is no doubt that someone tried to pass these photos off as a UFO to the press, so a little hyping would be expected.

But hovering in the same place for 5–10 minutes doesn't make sense either. Was it attached to the ground with a wire? A lighter-than-air object, like a balloon, would drift with the wind—or, if secured to the ground, it would still move around. Nothing in this story suggests it was a military craft or object. And if the witness actually managed to capture a secret military craft in a photo, why invent a fake UFO story?

 

[Mendel]

speculation:
• partially deflated balloon with a radar reflector hanging beneath it
• gets caught in a tree
• the boys look up from what they were doing, spot the reflector, do a double take
• a few photos are made
• gust of wind frees the balloon, which silently rises and vanishes in the sky

The assumed speed of ascent is due to parallax error.
The noise from the aircraft may have made them raise their heads.
The aircraft may have been trying to track the reflector, and were circling where they lost it.

In that case, the only false detail might be a misremembered date.

I have no evidence for this whatsoever, of course.

 

[JMartJr]

Yes, we know the military exists, and we know they sometimes conduct secret tests. But we also know that anti-gravity craft behaving as the witness described do not exist.

Agree, but that also holds true for anti-gravity craft behaving as the witness described but built by aliens instead of the military -- we don't know if THEY exist. So that is not a difference between the Alien Hypothesis and the "Secret Military Test" hypothesis.

To be clear, I am not arguing that either of these hypotheses is at all likely. I remain firmly on Team Thing on a String, but with some love for the Thing Stuck On Glass hypothesis. Neither of which requires that we stipulate unlikely things not known to exist! ^_^

 

[Andreas]

Agree, but that also holds true for anti-gravity craft behaving as the witness described but built by aliens instead of the military -- we don't know if THEY exist. So that is not a difference between the Alien Hypothesis and the "Secret Military Test" hypothesis.

To be clear, I am not arguing that either of these hypotheses is at all likely. I remain firmly on Team Thing on a String, but with some love for the Thing Stuck On Glass hypothesis. Neither of which requires that we stipulate unlikely things not known to exist! ^_^

Agreed. Sadly, this whole story is forever trapped in the low-information zone—unless, of course, the photographer suddenly comes forward and spills all the details. Though, even that might not be enough. He'd have to prove he was involved. And if all the negatives, models, cardboard cutouts, or whatever was used have long since been tossed in the bin, then, well, no one can ever prove anything.

But hey, at least we can prove that the image itself can be recreated in multiple ways. So, in the end, we're left with nothing but the tale of a strange craft hovering before dramatically zooming off into the unknown. Yeah… I wouldn't exactly call that a solid case.

 

[Andreas]

Understood, but I'd still like to know roughly how big a piece of glass would be required?

Shot this today using a 50x40 cm sheet of glass from an old frame. The "UFO" is a roughly 6 cm cardboard cutout. It doesn't look great—definitely not—but the goal was just to show that the glass wouldn't need to be unreasonably large.

Oh, and in the upper left corner, instead of branches, you might notice a bit of my wife's hair. Managed to convince her to hold the glass while I took the photo…

 

[jackfrostvc]

View attachment 78379Shot this today using a 50x40 cm sheet of glass from an old frame. The "UFO" is a roughly 6 cm cardboard cutout. It doesn't look great—definitely not—but the goal was just to show that the glass wouldn't need to be unreasonably large.

Oh, and in the upper left corner, instead of branches, you might notice a bit of my wife's hair. Managed to convince her to hold the glass while I took the photo…

Nice

Were the trees and fence at the bottom of the pic on your property and part of the photot or something else?

 

[Andreas]

Nice

Were the trees and fence at the bottom of the pic on your property and part of the photot or something else?

Yeah, I took the photo in a farmers field near my house.

 

[jackfrostvc]

Yeah, I took the photo in a farmers field near my house.

Nice, it's amazing how there is no obvious hint of the glass

 

[JMartJr]

Oh, and in the upper left corner, instead of branches, you might notice a bit of my wife's hair. Managed to convince her to hold the glass while I took the photo…

OK, be honest... who all went to look at the original pic to see if maybe there was somebody's hair instead of a tree hanging into the shot?

 

[John J.]

And if the witness actually managed to capture a secret military craft in a photo, why invent a fake UFO story?

If the witness account is honest (not necessarily accurate), which I very much doubt, how would they know the difference between the supposed military craft and an alien spacecraft?

As everyone points out the purported diamond didn't behave like any known or likely aircraft, and this is before the early X-files episode with the USAF flying quiet, rapidly-manoeuvring triangles.

Elsewhere on the forum there's some discussion about once-secret US findings that many UFO reports in the 1950s and 60s were probably caused by U2 and later A12 / SR71 flights. The UFO stories weren't fake as such, but the result of misidentification.

 

[Andreas]

Nice, it's amazing how there is no obvious hint of the glass

It's easy to avoid reflections in the glass, but my picture is way too bright. Because of that, the fence looks a bit strange. (I've noticed that taking pictures through a sheet of glass tends to create bright areas and reduce contrast, at least with my old camera.) With some adjustments to the camera settings, the fence would probably look more like a silhouette, similar to the Calvine photo.

It's pretty amazing what you can do with small cardboard silhouettes on a sheet of glass. I couldn't resist experimenting further, so I stuck some roughly cut shapes onto one of my windows.

I took this picture at dawn from inside a dark room, with the cardboard mockups glued to the inside of the window. I haven't altered the image except for converting it to black and white. It doesn't look like the Calvine photo, but I bet it would still fool Lou…

 

[Andreas]

If the witness account is honest (not necessarily accurate), which I very much doubt, how would they know the difference between the supposed military craft and an alien spacecraft?

You're right, they wouldn't know the difference. But it doesn't really matter, because the whole story falls apart if the object was actually a secret military craft. The only firsthand source mentioning the witness is the handwritten PM, which states:

"Large diamond-shaped UFO hovering for about 10 minutes before ascending vertically upwards at high speed. During the sighting, an RAF aircraft, believed to be a Harrier, made a number of low-level passes for 5 to 6 minutes before disappearing."

But none of this could have happened if it were a secret military craft. A 10-minute hover followed by a rapid vertical ascent doesn't match the capabilities of any known aircraft. And no Harriers were flying in the area that evening.

In other words, nothing in the testimony aligns with reality. This doesn't suggest a misinterpretation—it suggests a completely fabricated story.

 

[Mendel]

Sadly, this whole story is forever trapped in the low-information zone—

technically speaking, the LIZ refers to the property of certain classes of sensors to have a distance above which the sensor can detect something is there, but not resolve it enough to identify it. It's a literal zone.
The Calvine UFO is not in that zone (though the "Harrier" is right on the edge) because we can confidently say that the diamond-shaped thing is not like any known aircraft.