Claim: Original Calvine UFO Photo

[Andreas]

Or it could have been taken by someone without a tripod, and not very good at keeping the camera steady. If the hour is late and the lighting is poor, it might be a rather long exposure.

Well, yes, it depends on what we're actually seeing here. If it's an actual jet flying in the sky, I can't see this being possible. And again, if we're looking at small models or silhouettes on a sheet of glass, I don't think a long exposure is likely either. It's difficult to suspend models in a way that keeps them completely still outdoors in an open landscape, where wind would be a factor. The same goes for the sheet of glass—it's really hard to keep it perfectly steady, especially in even mildly windy conditions.

If it's a reflection in a lake, then a long exposure would be possible—but only if the "jet" isn't a reflection of a real plane but just some debris in the water.

 

[Andreas]

Do we know if Lindsay ever claimed to have put together a report or written account after his alleged telephone interview with "Russell"? To me, the handwritten PM looks like something created (by Lindsay?) to accompany the negatives when they were sent off for "analysis."

And isn't it likely that the information in the PM simply have been passed on from the Daily Record rather than coming directly from an interview with the witness? It seems reasonable to assume Lindsay (?) was given a brief summary of the case—the same one outlined in the PM. Nowhere in the PM is an actual interview with the witness mentioned. On the contrary, the vague account of the incident and the lack of crucial details suggest to me that the PM wasn't based on an interview at all.

If it had been, why didn't Lindsay, for example, ask for a more specific location of the incident? Or why didn't he simply ask "Russell" what camera was used? It seems to me that Lindsay was just preparing his superiors for a potential "UFO story" breaking in the media, without being particularly invested in investigating it himself.

Sure, it's definitely possible that the interview was made after the PM was written. But nevertheless, if the "Photographic details" section contains the questions Lindsay wanted answered by the specialists, that suggests to me that his main goal was to debunk the story by exposing inconsistencies in the testimony. Identifying the "UFO"? Not so much—he possibly assumed it was just a simple hoax.

Why keep the photograph all these years? Well, it's a pretty cool picture, hoax or not. I'd probably have kept it too, even if I knew it was a fake.

 

[Chundered]

I think it has some resemblance to evergreen broom. Here is a Street View from the area near Calvine:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/WSDXg9va1Zq3iDqCA

The location you have used as an example is very close to where the Pope recreation was made from - was that deliberate or just by chance ?

I have considered whether Pope had more accurate info on the location of the sighting as the recreation was pretty close to the original photo - which apparently he had been looking at on a wall for some period but never took a copy or photo of and the recreation was made quite a few years later - maybe he has a good memory.

If the alleged location was round there and the object was fairly low the topography could mean the object was hidden from main roads and obscured from some directions by hills.

 

[Andreas]

I have considered whether Pope had more accurate info on the location of the sighting as the recreation was pretty close to the original photo - which apparently he had been looking at on a wall for some period but never took a copy or photo of and the recreation was made quite a few years later - maybe he has a good memory.

Are they really that similar? Sure, Pope's "UFO" has a diamond-shaped outline, but that's about it. I actually think it's almost less accurate than one would expect, given Pope's interest in UFOs.

 

[Matt33]

The location you have used as an example is very close to where the Pope recreation was made from - was that deliberate or just by chance ?

Just by chance. I checked a couple of Street View paths and when I came along that place I thought that could be the type of plant.

 

[NorCal Dave]

Do we know if Lindsay ever claimed to have put together a report or written account after his alleged telephone interview with "Russell"? To me, the handwritten PM looks like something created (by Lindsay?) to accompany the negatives when they were sent off for "analysis."

See the YouTube video, post #1530 among others. Linsday's interview starts at about 43:00 and you can turn on transcripts. He says he "typed up a report" and sent it to London. Beyond that, everything is vague. It's unclear who wrote up the PM. Somewhere back in these 1500+ posts, I think @deirdre commenting that she thought it look like a woman's handwriting. Who knows.

It appears the photos and negatives were sent directly from the Daily Record to the London office.

I have considered whether Pope had more accurate info on the location of the sighting as the recreation was pretty close to the original photo - which apparently he had been looking at on a wall for some period but never took a copy or photo of and the recreation was made quite a few years later - maybe he has a good memory.

I have to agree with @Andreas on this one. Pope's whole schtick is to convey the idea that he knows more than he can talk about and that he was a much more important part of the UK MoD's UFO team than he really was. It seems conceivable that he did see a blow up of this photo or one very similar. As such, the recreation based upon his recollections has way too much detail and mountains in the background. As for the basic overall vibe, it's not that hard to remember and say, "big diamond in the middle and a Harrier lower right in Scotland".

As has been noted, except for possibly identifying the trees, this photo could have taken any number of places. There is nothing in the background to suggest mountains other than the claim that the photo was supposedly taken in mountainous part of Scotland. It's completely void.

When the photo did show up, Pope was rather quite about it. If he had seen a much better photo with the background of his recreation, he could have said so, but he didn't. The real photo may have pointed out that his recreation was a bit more convincing than the real thing.

 

[John J.]

To me, the handwritten PM looks like something created (by Lindsay?) to accompany the negatives when they were sent off for "analysis." ...And isn't it likely that the information in the PM simply have been passed on from the Daily Record rather than coming directly from an interview with the witness?

I agree that the handwritten note (from (UK) National Archives DEFE 24/1940/1, https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C10130124) is probably written by Craig Lindsay.

It might have accompanied the photocopy of "the best" Calvine photo that he sent to the Ministry of Defence.
Lindsay requested the original negatives; the Daily Record contacted the claimant and they complied.
It is unclear to me whether the Daily Record, on Lindsay's advice, sent the negatives directly to D/Sec (AS) 12/2, where the RAF "loose minute" archived in DEFE 24/1940/1 originates, or whether the Daily Record forwarded them to Lindsay first.
If the latter, maybe the handwritten note accompanied the negatives.

The middle redacted name (which precedes "RAF Press Officer Pitreavie MHQ") has two letters with descending features, possibly indicating the name is "Craig Lindsay" (orange circles, above).

David Clarke's article for The Daily Mail (12 August 2022, "Revealed after 32 years, the top secret picture one MOD insider calls 'the most spectacular UFO photo ever captured'", link via Wayback Machine) can be interpreted as supporting the middle name being Lindsay's;

Although the sparse MoD papers on the Calvine sighting were declassified, the names of the photographer (and Craig Lindsay) were removed from the file under Data Protection laws.

If the middle name is Craig Lindsay, which fits with our knowing that Lindsay was a press officer at RAF Pitreavie Castle, it should be noted there is no mention of rank. This is almost inconceivable in an inter-departmental communication by a member of the British armed forces.

The paper is not headed. It is not a military/ MoD reporting form, logbook or from a UK service police notebook of the time (where page numbers are clearly marked to aid accountability- pages cannot be removed).
Although David Clarke referred to Lindsay as an "RAF Officer" in Fortean Times 423, October 2022, it seems likely that Lindsay was a civilian press officer working for the RAF, probably as a civil servant in the MoD.

As the Daily Record asked for the opinion of Craig Lindsay (or, being a bit uncharitable but perhaps realistic, the RAF/ MoD- Lindsay was simply a contact, the press officer at RAF Pitreavie Castle) it doesn't seem remarkable that the Record shared their claimant's contact details IMHO.

Do we know if Lindsay ever claimed to have put together a report or written account after his alleged telephone interview with "Russell"?

Unless we accept the handwritten note as being from Lindsay, no.
But we should remember:
(1) Lindsay is responding to a query from a newspaper in his role as a press officer for the RAF.
(2) He was not an investigator of any sort. He was not directly involved in military intelligence, air defence, defence technology or security.
(3) We don't know if Lindsay had a special interest in UFOs until the Daily Record contacted him.
The Calvine photo seems to have had some sort of significance for Lindsay as he kept it for 32 years.
Until David Clarke found him, there's no evidence that Lindsay attempted to publicize the photo (post-1990 anyway); this seems like atypical behaviour for a UFO enthusiast!

I have sort of wondered if Craig Lindsay might know more about the Calvine photo than he's shared so far.
Having listened to him in the Disclosure Team item that @deirdre posted, https://www.metabunk.org/threads/claim-original-calvine-ufo-photo.12571/post-339718, I think I'm more persuaded he's recounting events as accurately as he can.
If anything, it's David Clarke who seems to be shaping the narrative a little:

CRAIG LINDSAY: The only comment I got was that they'd had a good look at them and they couldn't find anything to prove that the negatives had been, what was the word, ah, interfered with or, or, or manipulated in any way.

DAVID CLARKE: Yeah. Um, yeah. So it wasn't a fake, basically. [*]

CRAIG LINDSAY: Well, draw your own conclusions.

*There are many ways a photographic image might be faked without manipulating the negatives, and some have been discussed (and demonstrated) on this forum.

 

[Andreas]

It appears the photos and negatives were sent directly from the Daily Record to the London office.

Okay, seems reasonable since Lindsay was a press officer and wouldn't have a role in the investigation of such a case.

He says he "typed up a report" and sent it to London.

Yeah, I'm just wondering if he's perhaps talking about the informal looking handwritten letter. If so, it's not really a report but just some basic facts possibly told to him over phone by Andy Allan.

The Calvine photo seems to have had some sort of significance for Lindsay as he kept it for 32 years.

It's undeniably a pretty cool picture—fun to save and show the grandkids. I'm sure I would have kept it, and I think that's why Lindsay did too. We have no idea if he possibly told and retold this story at family dinners over the years, adding details for dramatic effect. Did he actually speak to the witness, or is that something he convinced himself of to make his involvement sound more interesting? Impossible to know. But we do know there's no evidence that such an interview ever took place. Human memory is strange—retell a story enough times, and you often end up with a completely different version in the end.

 

[FatPhil]

whole schtick is to convey the idea that he knows more than he can talk about

This trope needs a shorthand name.

 

[Andreas]

The reason I'm asking whether there's any evidence that Lindsay actually spoke to the witness is that I've previously written about reasons to believe Daily Record photo editor Andy Allan played a bigger role in this story than is often claimed. The following interview with Malcolm Speed, news editor at the Daily Record in 1990, can be found on David Clarke's blog:

https://drdavidclarke.co.uk/tag/malcolm-speed/

I did see the photograph and can confirm the story is true, . . . One of the images was shown to me by picture editor Andy Allan, now deceased. It looked amazing then and I was surprised that it was not published…

In other words, it was Allan who presented the photograph to the rest of the editorial staff.

Later when I returned from holiday and quizzed Andy about the photographs he told me he had sent them to the RAF who had told them they were fakes.

Okay, so Allan claimed that the "RAF" told him the photos were fakes. That's interesting because he was the person with the most knowledge about the photographer and the backstory, yet he apparently still accepted the claim that it was all a hoax. Of course, one could come up with ad hoc hypotheses to keep the story alive, but according to Speed, Allan was simply told they were fakes. He probably was—but possibly not by the MoD. Could it have been the photographer himself?

I was surprised he sent them to the RAF before they were published, especially given issues such as copyright and ownership.

Exactly what many people have pointed out in this forum—it doesn't make much sense, and even his news editor was surprised by his behavior. Why did he act this way? Did he know the photographer personally? Was it someone working under Allan? Or did Allan actually own the copyright himself?

Andy was very reluctant to talk about the photographs and said he had given his word to the photographers to protect their identity. I was never told their names. After that all discussions about the photos were discouraged. None of this makes any sense if the photographs were simple fakes.

Or does it? If Allan knew the photographer personally and the photos turned out to be fakes, that would have put him in a delicate position—especially since he had contacted the MoD about them. And frankly, just being involved in a case that turned out to be a hoax might have been reason enough for him to avoid talking about it altogether.

Even if they were fakes I still find it hard to believe why they were not published. We published all sorts of images if they were newsworthy. These photos should have been a front page teaser and blasted over a spread inside for every day of the week. There is something very odd about the decision not to use them that I cannot explain.

But honestly, what is he saying here?! If they knew the photos were fakes—and if the photographer had possibly even confessed—would he still consider the story newsworthy?! In what way? Writing an article about how their photo editor was fooled by some cardboard cutouts or a reflection in a lake doesn't exactly seem like a major news event.

To summarize: According to Malcolm Speed's statements, it seems like Allan was the one who had all contact with the photographer, knew his name, and spread the story to other employees. Then, suddenly, something happened, and he didn't want to talk about it anymore. To me, the idea that Allan was pranked by someone he knew sounds far more plausible than the theory that MIBs silenced people. Even the possibility that Allan himself was involved in the hoax seems more reasonable than most other alternatives. After all, we shouldn't forget that all the tools needed to pull off such a hoax were readily available at the Daily Record. If that's the case, we obviously need to account for Lindsay's recollection of his interview with the witness. I'm sure there's an explanation, but since we don't even know for sure if the interview ever took place, it's impossible to say for certain three decades after it allegedly happened.

 

[Mendel]

Later when I returned from holiday and quizzed Andy about the photographs he told me he had sent them to the RAF who had told them they were fakes.

Okay, so Allan claimed that the "RAF" told him the photos were fakes. That's interesting because he was the person with the most knowledge about the photographer and the backstory, yet he apparently still accepted the claim that it was all a hoax. Of course, one could come up with ad hoc hypotheses to keep the story alive, but according to Speed, Allan was simply told they were fakes. He probably was—but possibly not by the MoD. Could it have been the photographer himself?

I think you're taking this too literally. Remember, this is a game of telephone: hearsay twice removed.
Most likely the MoD told Allan there weren't any Harriers there at the time, so Allan concluded the pictures were fake. Because this is tied so closely together, it may well be remembered or retold as "the MoD told Allan the pictures were fake". Because if there weren't, then the witness was no longer credible, and their photos wouldn't be, either.

 

[Andreas]

I think you're taking this too literally. Remember, this is a game of telephone: hearsay twice removed.
Most likely the MoD told Allan there weren't any Harriers there at the time, so Allan concluded the pictures were fake. Because this is tied so closely together, it may well be remembered or retold as "the MoD told Allan the pictures were fake". Because if there weren't, then the witness was no longer credible, and their photos wouldn't be, either.

Absolutely. But, as Speed allegedly told Clarke, after this, Allan didn't even want to talk about the photos anymore. If the MoD had simply told him that no jets were in the area that evening, it still could have been a story—had it happened today, it would probably be called clickbait. Something like: "Witness claims RAF jets intercepted UFO—military denies it…" and so on.

If this "game of telephone" is more or less accurate, then I think there's reason to speculate that Allan had his own reasons for not exposing the photographer even after the hoax was debunked. Allan was an experienced photographer, living in Glasgow and working as a photo editor. The idea that "Russell" was someone within Allan's circle doesn't seem all that unlikely.

 

[deirdre]

To summarize: According to Malcolm Speed's statements, it seems like Allan was the one who had all contact with the photographer, knew his name, and spread the story to other employees. Then, suddenly, something happened, and he didn't want to talk about it anymore. To me, the idea that Allan was pranked by someone he knew sounds far more plausible than the theory that MIBs silenced people. Even the possibility that Allan himself was involved in the hoax seems more reasonable than most other alternatives. After all, we shouldn't forget that all the tools needed to pull off such a hoax were readily available at the Daily Record. If that's the case, we obviously need to account for Lindsay's recollection of his interview with the witness. I'm sure there's an explanation, but since we don't even know for sure if the interview ever took place, it's impossible to say for certain three decades after it allegedly happened.

If this "game of telephone" is more or less accurate, then I think there's reason to speculate that Allan had his own reasons for not exposing the photographer even after the hoax was debunked. Allan was an experienced photographer, living in Glasgow and working as a photo editor. The idea that "Russell" was someone within Allan's circle doesn't seem all that unlikely.

sounds like you are seriously reaching.

The idea that the story would still be published with photos after the photographer found out his photos were sent to the FRIGGIN MOD, is what is unreasonable. would you still sell your pictures to the paper if you found out the paper had involved the FBI?! or worse the PENTAGON?! i wouldnt.

 

[JMartJr]

would you still sell your pictures to the paper if you found out the paper had involved the FBI?! or worse the PENTAGON?! i wouldnt.

Why not? The "damage" has already been done, might as well get the money...?

 

[Mendel]

Why not? The "damage" has already been done, might as well get the money...?

hoax pictures pay way less than "genuine UFO", the asking price may have been too high

 

[Andreas]

hoax pictures pay way less than "genuine UFO", the asking price may have been too high

That could absolutely be the case. It's just that the whole story doesn't add up. People have tried to explain this with D-notices, secrecy, and men in black suits. But I find it far more plausible that Allan, for one reason or another, realized the pictures were a hoax yet still wanted to protect the photographer's identity.

It's pretty ridiculous that this case—supposedly the best UFO case ever—was handled by a newspaper photo editor and a press officer at the MoD.

 

[deirdre]

Why not? The "damage" has already been done, might as well get the money...?

not a single guy i knew in 1990 would go through with the fraud if the fbi or pentagon was involved. nobody is that hard up for a few bucks.

 

[Andreas]

sounds like you are seriously reaching.

The idea that the story would still be published with photos after the photographer found out his photos were sent to the FRIGGIN MOD, is what is unreasonable. would you still sell your pictures to the paper if you found out the paper had involved the FBI?! or worse the PENTAGON?! i wouldnt.

The whole thing with the pictures being sent to the MoD is indeed quite strange. News editor Malcolm Speed didn't understand why Allan would do such a thing, especially considering copyright and ownership issues. That's why I think we should seriously consider the possibility that someone was pulling a prank on Allan.

Now, think about the other scenario—someone sends Allan the pictures and asks for money from the Daily Record. And what does Allan do? He sends them off to the MoD. Either the photographer allowed him to do so (not very likely considering they're most likely a pure hoax), or Allan took a legal risk by acting on his own. If the pictures were genuine, they would obviously be worth a lot of money. To me, the idea of someone pranking Allan with a set of bizarre photos seems far more likely.

Sure, "Russell" might have turned down a low offer for his debunked photographs, but were we really talking about any significant sums of money anyway? The Daily Record has over the years published photos of Nessie, ghosts, and who knows what else—fun and exotic stories that might be worth some pocket money, sure, but I don't think anyone got rich off them.

Here's a 1986 front page with a rather interesting headline for a fake Nessie story.

Obviously, the photo was taken by two young campers.

 

[Andreas]

not a single guy i knew in 1990 would go through with the fraud if the fbi or pentagon was involved. nobody is that hard up for a few bucks.

They didn't do anything illegal, did they? And frankly, a press officer asking a few questions over the phone shouldn't be mistaken for "real" military investigators showing up in person. And do we even have proof that there were any "young hikers" at all? What I don't understand is why they would have allowed Allan to hand over the photos to the MoD, given the high likelihood that they would expose the hoax.

 

[Ann K]

It's pretty ridiculous that this case—supposedly the best UFO case ever—was handled by a newspaper photo editor and a press officer at the MoD.

I think maybe it's "the best case" simply because they have so few other candidates for the position. "The best" doesn't mean it's a good case, of course.

 

[John J.]

I was surprised he sent them to the RAF before they were published, especially given issues such as copyright and ownership.

Malcolm Speed quoted on David Clarke's website, The Calvine photographs – MoD response to MP's questions, 23 October 2022.

it doesn't make much sense, and even his news editor [Malcolm Speed] was surprised by his [Andy Allan's] behavior. Why did he act this way?

Speed raises the issues of copyright and ownership, but makes a fundamental oversight of a type which might be surprising for a man in his position.
The Daily Record asked the claimed witnesses for the negatives at the request of the MoD, [Edited to add: Er, I think] and they complied.
It is reasonable to expect that the claimants knew that the negatives might be examined. There is presumed consent.
In trying to establish the authenticity of the images, the MoD/ RAF is not infringing copyright, as there is no intent to put copies of the images into general circulation or to seek financial/ commercial advantage from their temporary custody of the images.

The Daily Record has been approached by someone with an extraordinary claim and some photos. In turn it has contacted a press office of the RAF, which doesn't seem unreasonable to me, considering the content of the images.
If, for instance, someone in Pitlochry sent a newspaper a fuzzy picture of what appeared to be a large black cat-like creature and claimed it was a panther on the village green (or whatever), they shouldn't be surprised if that newspaper asked the local police for comment, or sought the opinion of a naturalist as to whether it is a panther.

We don't know if news editor Malcolm Speed had line management superiority over picture editor Andy Allan; probably not as Speed didn't act to get the story published; and Speed told Clarke

After that all discussions about the photos were discouraged.

Subordinates generally don't tell their line managers what aspect of work they can and can't talk about, so either Allan discouraged talk about the photos and was of equivalent grade to Speed, or someone senior to Speed discouraged further discussion (possibly the paper's editor, Endell Laird).

Speed opined to Clarke,

Even if they were fakes I still find it hard to believe why they were not published. We published all sorts of images if they were newsworthy. These photos should have been a front page teaser and blasted over a spread inside for every day of the week.

This is Speed talking to Clarke some years after the event- Clarke doesn't say when; if it was in 2022 (the date of Clarke's article, link above) it was some 32 years after the Calvine UFO story at the Record, and 16 years after Speed retired (probably- see below).
Although Clarke says Speed

...admitted his paper had missed 'one of the biggest exclusives we ever had'

...as far as we know Speed didn't try to raise awareness about the Calvine UFO story himself, even after he left the Record.
And we (and Clarke) should remember that Speed claims he would have run the story even if the pictures were fake.
However, Speed clearly didn't have the authority to do that at the time.

Incidentally, Clarke says

Malcolm Speed retired in 2015 after 40 years as a journalist working for the Mirror Group newspapers

Speed is on the committee of the Association of Mirror Pensioners, https://www.mirrorpensioners.co.uk/committee/malcolm-speed/.
The Daily Record had been part of Mirror Group (and is now owned by Reach PLC which also owns the Daily Mirror, Britain's most popular left-leaning tabloid). The Mirror Group had been owned by Robert Maxwell, businessman and fraudster, who stole from the company's pension fund;

...arguably the biggest losers were the pensioners who had £460m looted from their fund.

"Great frauds in history: Robert Maxwell", Matthew Partridge, 30 April 2019, MoneyWeek website
...which is largely why there is an Association of Mirror Pensioners. Irrelevant trivia: Maxwell's daughter Ghislaine is currently imprisoned in the USA for procuring girls for Brian Epstein.

On the Association of Mirror Pensioner's website (link above), Malcolm Speed's bio (dated 16 September 2015) reads

MALCOLM SPEED retired from the Daily Record in 2006 after more than 40 years' pensionable service. He had been news editor of the Record, managing editor of the SDR&SM...
Malcolm is 69...

So born c. 1946, retiring aged 60 after >40 year's work in 2006.
Clarke's account has Speed retiring aged 69 in 2015, possibly confusing Speed's retirement with the year that he became a committee member at AMP.

And maybe Speed, talking with Clarke, remembered the Calvine photos but didn't think about other newsworthy events happening at the same time: 2 days prior to the claimed Calvine event, Iraq had invaded Kuwait. A number of Britons (almost certainly including Scots) had been detained by the Iraqis: Passengers and aircrew from British Airways flight 149 (Wikipedia) and members of a British Army training team working in Kuwait. Some were abused; all were used as hostages.
Perhaps the Editor of the Daily Record didn't think it was a good time to run a frivolous story involving British forces or the MoD.

 

[Andreas]

The Daily Record asked the claimed witnesses for the negatives at the request of the MoD, and they complied.

Do we know this, or is this something claimed by Lindsay?

In trying to establish the authenticity of the images, the MoD/ RAF is not infringing copyright

The Daily Record has been approached by someone with an extraordinary claim and some photos. In turn it has contacted a press office of the RAF, which doesn't seem unreasonable to me, considering the content of the images.
If, for instance, someone in Pitlochry sent a newspaper a fuzzy picture of what appeared to be a large black cat-like creature and claimed it was a panther on the village green (or whatever), they shouldn't be surprised if that newspaper asked the local police for comment, or sought the opinion of a naturalist as to whether it is a panther.

That's true, but the photographer would still have had to agree to his original negatives being sent to the MoD. It's often claimed that "Russell" must have been shocked when Lindsay called with questions, but why would he be if he had willingly let Allan share all the information with the MoD? And if he lied about RAF jets flying over Calvine that evening, wouldn't he have known the MoD could easily expose his lies?

I find it hard to believe that anyone at the Daily Record would have taken a story like this too seriously. Isn't it more likely that it was treated as a sensational piece to attract readers, like their occasional Nessie stories? If that's the case, asking the MoD for a comment would make sense—but having them examine the pictures in advance seems rather pointless, or even counterproductive. The story being true doesn't seem like a real possibility, given that the witness claimed things that simply couldn't have happened—unless, of course, ET decided to make a pit stop in Calvine that evening.

 

[deirdre]

—but having them examine the pictures in advance seems rather pointless, or even counterproductive.

they didnt ask the MOD to examine the pictures. The MOD asked to see the negatives after lindsay sent them a fax of a pic.

They didn't do anything illegal, did they?

selling fake pictures or real pictures with a fake story and claiming they are real is fraud. they didnt do anything illegal as assumedly the paper never bought the photos. But if the pictures or story was fake and the paper did pay for them thinking they were real then that would have been fraud.

What I don't understand is why they would have allowed Allan to hand over the photos to the MoD,

i dont understand why you think Allen asked permission of the photographers.

44:00 [the paper told Lindsay]they had come in with 6 negatives.
..
i said what about a print? they [the paper] said "yup no problem at all we'll get one done and get to you"

45:30 it was my contact in london.
...
i called [the paper] and they said "yea no problem, i'll send the negatives to whoever you want me to. heres the name and here's a phone number.

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

 

[deirdre]

@Andreas if you really want to have fun with the theories go to the OP (post #1 in this thread) and scroll down to the thread index Rory made and click on "Stu Little"... that was a fun side story.

 

[John J.]

It's pretty ridiculous that this case—supposedly the best UFO case ever—was handled by a newspaper photo editor and a press officer at the MoD.

Well, in fairness the RAF Pitreavie Castle press officer (Craig Lindsay- probably employed by the MoD) arranged for the negatives and photos to be sent to Air Staff in London, who (Lindsay claimed, interview with Clarke posted by @deirdre here) submitted them for examination by JARIC, the Joint Air Reconnaissance Intelligence Centre.
I'm surprised it was taken so seriously.

National Archives ref. DEFE 31/180/1, https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C10232694, has a record dated 29 November 1991 which might indicate that there was continuing interest in the Calvine story (and might suggest JARIC was involved, but the relevant date- if it is a date- at the foot of the second page, "Task sent to JARIC on:", is illegible.

The field "J", "Date(s) report(s) required" has a date of 13 February, suggesting that the drawings and estimates were needed for a specific purpose, not just a matter of routine.
(The numbered fields 1-15 on page 2 were empty, hence the blue dashed line).

I find it hard to believe that anyone at the Daily Record would have taken a story like this too seriously. Isn't it more likely that it was treated as a sensational piece to attract readers, like their occasional Nessie stories?

There's the possibility that one or more people at the Daily Record might have thought that the claims were potentially true, or in some significant way partly true. In which case, this would be an extraordinarily important story.
Someone at the Daily Record, possibly Andy Allan, decided ask for the RAF's opinion. I doubt this would be done if it were clearly evident that the claims were frivolous. The RAF/ MoD weren't running a send-your-best-hoax-appreciation-desk.

asking the MoD for a comment would make sense—but having them examine the pictures in advance seems rather pointless, or even counterproductive.

Not if the Daily Record staff were taking the claim seriously, or at least seriously enough to want to investigate further.

Edited to add: Forgot to say, note that on page 1 of the MoD form, it states the original negatives are unavailable- this fits with them being returned (if the form is connected to the Calvine material).

 

[deirdre]

National Archives ref. DEFE 31/180/1, https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C10232694, has a record dated 29 November 1991 which might indicate that there was continuing interest in the Calvine story (and might suggest JARIC was involved, but the relevant date- if it is a date- at the foot of the second page, "Task sent to JARIC on:", is illegible.

well Nick Pope had started working there by then, no? and we know he was interested.

 

[John J.]

well Nick Pope had started working there by then, no? and we know he was interested.

Hmm, I hadn't thought of that. It's an interesting idea.
I don't know if he had the authority to ask JARIC to review material or ask for drawings/ dimension estimates (and I don't know he didn't).
And sometimes people have got things done by implying that their boss requested it, or having more familiarity with a contact in a different department than their organisation might want (speaking generally, not specifically about the MoD or Nick Pope).

Imagine; NP asks for line drawings/ dimensions of the Calvine "UFO" based on the filed Vu-Foils out of personal interest.
Five years later he mentions the Calvine photos in his book Open Skies, Closed Minds (1996, Overlook Press, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Skies,_Closed_Minds) . Published in 1996, he must have started working on it earlier.

David Clarke reads Open Skies, Closed Minds (IIRC this is stated on his website) and learns about the Calvine UFO photos.
David Clarke goes through "The UFO Files" submitted by the MoD to the National Archives, and finds (in DEFE 31/180/1) evidence of a submission to JARIC, which indicates someone in the MoD is taking the Calvine sighting seriously a year after the event.
But that someone is NP. Hmm.

However, the "Originator" name, near foot of the form's second page post #1625; PDF page 56 of DEFE 31/180/1 (link to National Archives webpage for downloading file here) is redacted. The "Branch" is given as "DI55 [something] 1"; DI55 was

...a branch of the Directorate of Scientific and Technical Intelligence (DSTI) that dealt with missiles and air defence.

Wikipedia, Calvine UFO photograph; I don't know if the UFO desk was part of DI55.

 

[Mendel]

Speed raises the issues of copyright and ownership, but makes a fundamental oversight of a type which might be surprising for a man in his position.
The Daily Record asked the claimed witnesses for the negatives at the request of the MoD, [Edited to add: Er, I think] and they complied.
It is reasonable to expect that the claimants knew that the negatives might be examined. There is presumed consent.
In trying to establish the authenticity of the images, the MoD/ RAF is not infringing copyright, as there is no intent to put copies of the images into general circulation or to seek financial/ commercial advantage from their temporary custody of the images.

I don't understand the issues at all.

Copyright is only involved inasfar as the newspaper produced additional prints; since they weren't published, the damages would be minimal.

Ownership issues would come into play if the newspaper had to return the negatives to the photographer but was unable to. I don't understand how showing the negatives to the MoD would violate any ownership rights.

Note that we do not know:
• if the newspaper paid the photographer. If an advance was paid, this might include the right to use the photos internally!
• what kind of consent form (or similar) the photographer submitted along with the negatives.

Acccusing the picture editor of breaking the law when we do not know which legal rights he may have been granted seems poor form.

 

[Andreas]

Acccusing the picture editor of breaking the law when we do not know which legal rights he may have been granted seems poor form.

I've listened to your arguments and agree with most of them, though I don't think it necessarily comes down to whether something was illegal or not. However, Allan sending the negatives to the MoD for inspection suggests that either the witness actually agreed to it or that Allan had no reason to believe the photographer would object.

If "Russell" agreed, then Lindsay's call couldn't have been a surprise—it must have been expected, and he would have been prepared to lie to the military to make some extra money. But since "Russell" claimed to have seen a military jet at a specific place and time, it would have been easy for the MoD to expose the lie—something "Russell" should have realized.

On the other hand, if Allan acted on his own without the photographer's consent, that seems a bit odd, regardless of whether it was legal. If the negatives were valuable, handing them over to a third party without permission would have been a significant risk.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

For me....i think the biggest clue to what it actually is has been largely overlooked.

The 'UFO' not only doesn't look like any classic UFO, but also has bizarre markings that are not symmetric and which seem odd for a hoaxer to add. And it occurs to me ( and I'm not the first to notice this ) that the UFO looks like it is actually itself a landscape image of some sort, when you zoom in on it.

I can see ground, a horizon, clouds, some darker object ( maybe a building )....all of which suggest to me that the 'UFO' is actually part of another photo.

Here it is...close up.

View attachment 78088

And here is what I think. Look at how camera apertures can themselves be diamond shaped...


View attachment 78090

And there's our 'UFO'. Perhaps deliberately jammed, double exposure, which would explain why the UFO itself looks like scenery of some sort.

You claim you can see recognizable landscape details in the UFO image. That seems to be imagination.

You seem to be suggesting that the shape of the UFO image could be a "bokeh."
But that doesn't go together. "Bokeh" are severely out of focus images. Are there visible details in that kind of image?

Spoiler: Definitions

These are the strict definitions:

bokeh - an aesthetically pleasing background blur - (made up of many out-of-focus images).

circle of confusion - Theoretical limit of sharpness which helps to calculate hyperfocal distance. (Not a thing you see.) Often conflated with "blur circle" but it's not the same thing.

blur circle - A physical projection of an out-of-focus point of light on the sensor or film. Each individual out-of-focus point is represented by a blur circle.

Strictly speaking, "blur circle" isn't the out of focus image you see. I guess you could think of it as a beam of light that has a shape when it's in front of or behind the focus point.

But - in the olden days - it was usually meant as: A discrete out-of -focus image of a light or a thing, within the larger image. That meaning of blur circle seems to be forgotten, and has been replaced by "bokeh."

Even though it ain't bokeh. But I give up. No one has coined a discrete word. So bokeh now has two separate meanings. One a count noun and the other a non-count noun.

In effect - now - bokeh is an aesthetically pleasing background made up of bokehs.

If you want to insist that bokeh is always a non-count noun then you'll have to stop saying thinks like, "It's a bokeh." Or, "Those are bokeh. "

That would be like saying, "It's a rice." Or, "Those are rice."

"Blur shape" would be a good word, I think.

The reason a bokeh takes on the shape of the lens aperture: When a point of light from a scene is out of focus, it becomes a blur circle rather than a sharp point. The exact shape of the blur circle is determined by how light rays are allowed through the aperture.

The aperture "shapes" the light. It's a geometric projection. Light passing through the lens creates a cone of rays, and the aperture defines the boundary of this cone.

But you don't see the shape in a focused image, because all light rays from a single point in the scene converge to a single point on the film.

When the point is out of focus, the light rays do not converge perfectly. They form a converging or diverging cone of light that intersects the film in front of or behind the focal point.

Point source too close, in focus, and too far. (No aperture)



But... less luminous objects can form a "dark bokeh" when they block out the light of things behind them. Such as MW's tape on the window. Because they also form a geometrically shaped cone of light. Just less light.

It's the light that passes around the object that produces the bokeh. I guess you could call it a projection with a hole in the middle.

But the object must be out-of-focus.

An "out-of-focus shadow" will form a dark bokeh. An in-focus shadow will form a silhouette.

A dark bokeh is an out-of-focus silhouette, if you please. But, really, it's the light that makes it past the object that forms the bokeh.



Here's an interesting point: Small light sources form discrete bokehs. Bigger light sources form a mass of overlapping discrete bokehs.

What I don't know: Will a large out-of-focus dark object produce an over lapping mass of discrete bokeh? Probably.



A shadow isn't going to show details. And an out-of-focus shadow? How about that? That's the only thing that can form a "dark bokeh" as far as I know.

Can a less luminous, or dark, object form a bokeh from the light reflected off it's surface? I wouldn't think so. It wouldn't be visible, anyway.

So either the UFO is an in-focus image or a bokeh with no details, but it can't be both.

An in-focus image won't take on the shape of the aperture.

Next issue: If one were to give up on the idea that the UFO image shows recognizable landscape details, and it's a dark bokeh, what's the object that's so close to the camera that it's so out of focus?

And if it's dark bokeh, it should be featureless. The UFO image is at least mottled. Would that happen?

Perhaps deliberately jammed, double exposure, which would explain why the UFO itself looks like scenery of some sort.

A double exposure doesn't make sense for the same reason. A bokeh is an out of focus image. There's no such thing as an in-focus image that takes on the shape of the aperture.

 

[John J.]

If the negatives were valuable, handing them over to a third party without permission would have been a significant risk.

The Daily Record had facilities for copying prints and negatives...

-Andrew Robinson's analysis of the photo, version 5.0, June 2024 PDF attached to this post.
Supposition on my part, but the Daily Record might have made more than one set of negatives to be on the safe side?

And the Daily Record could have used a courier service to deliver the negatives/ photos.
Thinking about it, the Record (or its Mirror Group owners) might have had its own modest courier/ transport fleet:
Mirror Group was based in London, and some of the material the Record used was from the much larger Daily Mirror.
It's likely (in 1990) that material to be shared was routinely physically transferred between Mirror Group's London and Glasgow sites.
Either way, it seems likely Daily Record staff were familiar with handling and sending/ receiving potentially valuable press material.

What evidence we have (which is very patchy, and not necessarily reliable) is that the negatives were returned, whether to the Daily Record or the claimant(s) isn't clear:

CRAIG LINDSAY:
I think the last thing I heard was, well, it's being investigated, we've sent the negatives back, ah, I didn't ask, I just assumed that it was back to the, the Record...

DAVID CLARKE:
So they did tell you that, that they'd sent the negatives back?

CRAIG LINDSAY:
Yes, oh yeah, we've sent the negatives back...

-From the video (though this bit is audio only) posted by @deirdre here, approx. 52 mins 22 secs - 52 mins 38 secs in.
The "DIS(SP)OPS Imagery Tasking Form", reference(?) 00920009, released with the National Archives reference DEFE 31/180/1 stated "Original negatives are not available." (post 1625).

 

[Andreas]

Supposition on my part, but the Daily Record might have made more than one set of negatives to be on the safe side?

What evidence we have (which is very patchy, and not necessarily reliable) is that the negatives were returned, whether to the Daily Record or the claimant(s) isn't clear:

Good point! Perhaps Allan made some extra duplicates just to be on the safe side.

As for whether the negatives were returned, I agree that they probably were. And I don't really see why the Daily Record would have any record of this. If they were returned, they were most likely sent to Allan, who either gave them back to "Russell" or, if they were duplicates, simply discarded them. Since the Daily Record apparently decided not to buy them for one reason or another, they wouldn't have had any reason to keep copies in their archive, would they?

 

[Andreas]

I was trying to find similar "UFO cases" in Scotland—perhaps in a vain attempt to see if the same hoaxer might have pulled the same prank more than once. I stumbled upon a rather ridiculous case. (Most of you have possibly heard of it, I had not.)

This alleged "sighting" took place on February 19, 1994, at the Craigluscar Reservoir near Dunfermline, close to Edinburgh (about 60 miles southeast of Calvine).

The story goes: A man named "Ian MacPherson" was out by the reservoir, taking pictures for an art project. Suddenly, a metallic UFO appeared, hovered above the reservoir for as long as 15 minutes, and then zoomed off at great speed. The witness managed to snap photos as it flew away. He then contacted the Daily Record, handed over the negatives, and drew a sketch of what he saw. "Air defense staff" were consulted, the photographs were handed over to the MoD, and later returned after examination. The MoD didn't reach any conclusions but confirmed that no unusual radar returns had been reported in the area. Nevertheless, the story resulted in a large article in the Daily Record on February 28, 1994.

There are a few similarities with the Calvine case:
- The way the "UFO" were said to behave (hovering motionless for a long time before suddenly zooming away at great speed).
- The witness claimed to have taken photographs of the object.
- The witness contacted the Daily Record and handed over photo negatives.
- The MoD was "involved".

Regarding the photographs, I'd say there are some similarities as well. Both feature a cloudy sky with only traces of vegetation or landmarks, and in both cases, the "UFO" appears somewhat "cut into" the rest of the scene.

Even though we have no proof whatsoever that this "Ian MacPherson" had anything to do with the Calvine case three and a half years earlier, it's still interesting to compare the two cases for one obvious reason: The Craigluscar case—unlike Calvine—actually resulted in an article in the Daily Record. Looking at this article, we can be pretty sure that lack of evidence had nothing to do with the editors not publishing the Calvine photos. The sensationalism in the Craigluscar article says a lot…

 

[Charlie Wiser]

There are a few similarities with the Calvine case:
- The way the "UFO" were said to behave (hovering motionless for a long time before suddenly zooming away at great speed).
- The witness claimed to have taken photographs of the object.
- The witness contacted the Daily Record and handed over photo negatives.
- The MoD was "involved".

Nick Pope earning his keep here.

I would think the Record got the MoD involved in the Calvine case simply in order to get a statement from them (as in the later case, above). No matter what response they got - from "no comment" and up, it provides a sentence of copy for the article that makes the paper look like they did their job.

(This doesn't answer the question of why they sent the 1994 UFO to press but not the 1990 one, but there are multiple reasons why a paper like the Record would or would not print a specific story at any specific time, and I doubt those reasons are related to things like evidence and accuracy.)

 

[Mendel]

I would think the Record got the MoD involved in the Calvine case simply in order to get a statement from them (as in the later case, above). No matter what response they got - from "no comment" and up, it provides a sentence of copy for the article that makes the paper look like they did their job.

yeah, but the MoD response was actually different: pointing towards a fake in the Calvine case because of the Harriers, while here Nick Pope indicates there might be something to it.

 

[Andreas]

Nick Pope earning his keep here.
View attachment 78538

I would think the Record got the MoD involved in the Calvine case simply in order to get a statement from them (as in the later case, above). No matter what response they got - from "no comment" and up, it provides a sentence of copy for the article that makes the paper look like they did their job.

(This doesn't answer the question of why they sent the 1994 UFO to press but not the 1990 one, but there are multiple reasons why a paper like the Record would or would not print a specific story at any specific time, and I doubt those reasons are related to things like evidence and accuracy.)

You're absolutely right—contacting the MoD is a great way to get a statement and add some "credibility" to a potential article.

Yes, my point is that I think we can rule out lack of evidence as the reason the Calvine story never made it into the paper. The Craigluscar story is even weaker than Calvine, yet it was featured. And I'm sure national security had nothing to do with it. Lack of space doesn't seem likely either, since stories like this are often used to balance out heavier news with some sensationalism to attract readers. Plus, it wasn't time-sensitive and could have been held for a later issue when there were pages to fill.

But there are other plausible reasons. Maybe the journalist assigned to the case met with the witness and realized that mental illness was a factor. Or perhaps the photographer was trying to use his bogus story for some personal agenda that the newspaper didn't want to be involved in—like promoting a book, an independent movie, an art project, or something similar. I do think that's likely the case with the "Craigluscar ufo".

 

[Andreas]

yeah, but the MoD response was actually different: pointing towards a fake in the Calvine case because of the Harriers, while here Nick Pope indicates there might be something to it.

Yeah, well, the way the story is presented in the article makes me doubt that the journalist (and future news editor), Tom Hamilton, actually believed Mr. Robinson. I'd say it's written in a rather mocking tone—"He was buzzed by what he's convinced was a UFO from the Twilight Zone!"

And Nick Pope… yeah, his response says a lot about his credibility as an investigator.

 

[Mendel]

Yeah, well, the way the story is presented in the article makes me doubt that the journalist (and future news editor), Tom Hamilton, actually believed Mr. Robinson. I'd say it's written in a rather mocking tone—"He was buzzed by what he's convinced was a UFO from the Twilight Zone!"

i agree—mentioning hubcap, frisbee and clay pigeon in the second paragraph betrays a sceptical outlook. The news value here is that not only the contributor, but also two organisations believe there may be something to it.

And, of course, presumably the lack of more important news is factor. What were the Daily Record headlines on the days they could've ran the Calvine UFO story?

 

[Ann K]

Maybe the journalist assigned to the case met with the witness and realized that mental illness was a factor.

"Mental illness" is you introducing another blue-sky suggestion for which there's no evidence at all. It's far more probable that a couple of young guys couldn't repress a smirk, or that the journalist looked at it and recognized it as a small islet and its reflection. Or they got a lot of negative reactions from the previous story that they publicized, with readers telling them it was an obvious hoax.

 

[JMartJr]

"Mental illness" is you introducing another blue-sky suggestion for which there's no evidence at all. It's far more probable that a couple of young guys couldn't repress a smirk, or that the journalist looked at it and recognized it as a small islet and its reflection. Or they got a lot of negative reactions from the previous story that they publicized, with readers telling them it was an obvious hoax.

To be fair, those are also conjectures for which there is no evidence, though less serious if read as "accusations." Andreas, and now you, have laid out the fact that there are a number of reasons why the story might not have been run, which if true would suggest a hoax. I don't think we can speculate as to WHICH is more likely, or even that it must be ONE of them. But it is worth noting that there exists a number of possibilities, I think.