There is still no real provenance for the newly released picture. The story starts with Pope's book claiming to have seen the picture on the wall at the office, hardly classified. He described it this way to Clark:
External Quote:
'…It was taken I think in 1990, before my tour of duty, and it was actually in poster form, blown up by various people who had looked at it and stuck on the wall. It really was Fox Mulder stuff. It didn't have 'I want to believe' on it but it was on the office wall when I joined … it subsequently came to be removed but it was there and it had as far as I can recall been taken by two people who had been out walking in Pitlochry who had heard a low humming sound, looked around, done a double take, shot off I think, I'm not sure if they shot off a few pictures or just one [but] it had been sent to the MOD. I don't think that we had the negative, indeed they may have asked that we send it back
External Quote:
https://drdavidclarke.co.uk/secret-files/the-calvine-ufo-photographs/
The story circulates for a while with people like Clark doing FOIA stuff, then somehow gets a lead to Craig Lindsey, a former Press Secretary who tells Clark:
External Quote:
He said: 'I have been waiting more than 30 years for someone to call me about this story…and you are the first person to do so.'
In his own words, it is 'either an extremely clever hoax or it shows "the real thing"'
https://drdavidclarke.co.uk/2022/08/12/the-calvine-ufo-revealed/
And that's it. I didn't find anything in Clark's writings, yet, that mention how or why this guy had the picture or where he got it. Maybe I missed it. He also indicates he's had it for 30 years and was waiting for someone to come find him. Why not just go public with the picture? Is it the same picture Pope claimed to have seen? He called it a "poster", this looks like an 12"x14" maybe?
How much classified stuff can an RAF Press Secretary see? If it was a picture of a Top Secret hypothetical Araura in flight, would it have been on the wall so this guy could take it home with him? If everybody figured it was just a hoax and they pinned it to the wall for fun, then that makes sense.
Then there is analysis by Clark's colleague, which DavidB66 mentions:
Having concluded, on these rather weak grounds, that the original negative was black-and-white, the expert considers the kinds of film stock available (remember that this was 1990, when B&W photography was a rare speciality), and draws the important inference that the photographer was probably relatively knowledgeable about the subject.
B&W wasn't common for everyday photography, true, but I had learned Photography and Darkroom in collage in ~1985 with all B&W. There was at the time, and into the '90s, a strong amateur/hobbyist segment devoted to it. And many, many of them also had their own home darkroom setups, that was part of it. One could take a picture, develop the film and print the pictures all at home.
I don't know in the UK, but in the mid '80s-'90s B&W film was fairly easy to find. Not every drugstore stocked it, but it wasn't special order.
Now if we look at the MoD report it says they had, at least, the original negatives. It's a little unclear if there were also pictures. The handwritten notes seem to say 6 color photographs, but the typed up just says photographic negatives:
So, if there were actual prints, maybe that's what Linsday ended up with. If it was just negatives, it means MoD or someone, Linsday (?), must have made prints from the negatives, right?
But the question is why would our UFO spotter give up his "original negatives"? They are his leverage. I could see if he sent prints to the Daily Record first, and then physically brought the negatives in for them to see if they showed interest. Or maybe send 1 of the 6 original negatives as proof, but all of them? And then the Daily Record sent them on to the MoD. Was this with the photographer's consent or knowledge? And they never returned them that anyone knows of? There is just this one old photo in Lindsey's possession?
Now if our photographer was an experienced amateur working at home, it would be plausible that he was making copies of his negatives and never sent the originals to anyone. It also opens the door to manipulation of the negatives. Be good to get
@Z.W. Wolf to weigh in, as he has experience in this kind of photography and darkroom work IIRC.