Ann K
Senior Member.
True, but the "mental illness" thing is a pejorative, and possibly actionable. I don't think it should be thrown about carelessly.
Claim: Original Calvine UFO Photo
- Thread starter Mick West
- Start date
I have no idea, but obviously, a lot was happening in the world at the time. That said, I don't think lack of space was the reason for not featuring the Calvine photos. As I mentioned earlier, the story wasn't time-sensitive and could have been held back until there was room for it.
One important thing to remember is that the Calvine photos seem to have vanished from the face of the earth right after the Daily Record decided not to publish the story. Let's assume Allan found the photos dubious at best and advised his editors not to run them—fair enough. But the hoaxer or witness apparently didn't try to get them published elsewhere. At least, no one has ever come forward claiming to have seen them or been offered the chance to buy them.
In other words, at first, our hoaxer was willing to share them with the world and even provide a testimony to the MoD. But then, he went completely silent for decades. Why? We'll probably never know.
Absolutely, there are plenty of possible explanations, but a poorly executed hoax just isn't enough given that stories like this were frequently featured. And we know the Daily Record didn't stop publishing sensational paranormal stories—the report about the flying saucer over Craigluscar Reservoir was published three and a half years after the Calvine incident supposedly took place.
I didn't, under any circumstances, accuse anyone of being mentally ill. However, we know for a fact that mentally ill individuals have been exploited by both "UFO enthusiasts" and tabloid journalists looking to profit from alleged strange stories. That said, we also know that most serious journalists wouldn't operate that way. For some reason, the Daily Record decided to mock "Ian MacPherson," yet they spared the person behind the Calvine story. But I'm sure there's some perfectly logical explanation for that.
John J.
Senior Member.
Well, our (probable) hoaxer answered questions from a public relations guy for the RAF who phoned him.
I don't think many people would say that's providing testimony to the MoD (which sounds much more formal), even if that's literally true in a narrow sense.
Lindsay didn't bother to ask the guy he spoke to his home address, which seems a massive oversight, but as I've noted before, Lindsay wasn't an investigator, and wouldn't have had any special authority.
The Ministry of Defence has its own civilian (but armed) police force, some of whose officers would have appropriate training in conducting investigations (and who, unlike UK military police, hold the office of constable and so have policing powers regarding the public wherever they are), but there's no reason to believe that the Calvine claimant would have been of any legitimate interest to them.
I agree. Nothing I've seen regarding this case suggests the MoD was particularly interested. Lindsay was apparently curious, but even he doesn't seem to have done more than the bare minimum to figure out what it was all about.
Personally, I'm not convinced he actually spoke to "Russell." It's certainly possible, but just as likely that he misremembered the details three decades later and confused it with another case. I'm fairly certain the handwritten PM/letter was based on the story provided by Andy Allan rather than an interview with the witness. Otherwise, it's hard to explain the lack of key details—no address or phone number for the witness, no mention of what kind of camera was used, and, most notably, no exact location for where the alleged incident occurred.
Charlie Wiser
Senior Member.
It's even possible the photographers admitted to the hoax once they were interviewed by the paper, after the MoD weighed in (i.e. expressed no interest). If any editor or reporter at the paper took the case seriously (which itself isn't a given, of course, for a tabloid rag), it would be personally embarrassing for them, which would be motivation to just bury the whole thing quickly.
Mendel
Senior Member.
Yes, but Allen saying "he had sent them to the RAF who had told them they were fakes" instead of saying "the photographer admitted they were fakes" makes me think no such admission happened.
Article: Malcolm Speed retired in 2015 after 40 years as a journalist working for the Mirror Group newspapers. He was news editor in 1990 when the paper had a daily circulation of 700,000.
Speed said he saw the Calvine photograph in August 1990 shortly before he left the Glasgow office on his annual summer holiday.
'I did see the photograph and can confirm the story is true,' he told me. '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'…
'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.
'I was surprised he sent them to the RAF before they were published, especially given issues such as copyright and ownership.
'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'.
Smythe Bacchus
Active Member
Even before the original Calvine UFO photo was rediscovered, the stealth aircraft theory had already been discussed on Metabunk.
The apparently faceted shape of the Calvine UFO is slightly reminiscent of the F-117 Nighthawk. Its detailed appearance was revealed to the general public only 4 months earlier in April 1990. So referral of the Calvine photo to the MOD is plausible - if the Daily Record suspected that it could be a military secret.
The apparently faceted shape of the Calvine UFO is slightly reminiscent of the F-117 Nighthawk. Its detailed appearance was revealed to the general public only 4 months earlier in April 1990. So referral of the Calvine photo to the MOD is plausible - if the Daily Record suspected that it could be a military secret.
Article: In April 1990, two F-117s flew to Nellis (AFB), arriving during daylight and publicly displayed to a crowd of tens of thousands.
Article: 
This invasion triggered Operation Desert Shield, a US military buildup in Saudi Arabia which later became Desert Storm and the F-117 was deployed. In the account by Maj Gen Greg Feest below, his squadron had not departed until after the Calvine photo was taken.
External Quote:
Last edited:
Possibly, yes. But as has been said before, all we have are decades-old recollections of the event. What we can be fairly certain of is that Allan was the one handling the photos, and we know that for one reason or another, the Daily Record chose not to run the story. However, exactly what he told Speed remains unknown.
Did he explicitly say, "Nah, they turned out to be fakes—RAF told me so," or did Speed simply ask, "What happened with those UFO photos you sent to the MoD?" and Allan replied, "They turned out to be fakes." If it was the latter, then it's entirely possible that Allan himself identified the hoax when inspecting the negatives in his lab. And we'll likely never know if he confronted "Russell" or whether he ever got a confession.
Interestingly, in the few official MoD documents we have on this case, there's nothing explicitly stating that the MoD declared the photos a hoax. If the images had been published, the MoD apparently intended to take certain actions:
In other words, it's clear to me that the MoD didn't want to appear dismissive or like the "bad guys" to the public. Simply saying, "We don't care about some bogus photos," could have led some people to assume they were hiding something. Instead, they took a more calculated approach—stating that they had examined the photos but couldn't draw any conclusions about the "object." This was a logical stance, especially given that they also stated no Harriers were operating in the area at the time and that there were no other reports of anything unusual.
In short, they officially took no position but indirectly signaled that the story was false.
Would such a statement alone have been enough for Allan to decide not to run the story? I doubt it, given the kind of "paranormal" content the Daily Record occasionally published—stories about ghosts, Nessie, and UFOs included.
One thing that still puzzles me is the division of labor at the newspaper. It seems like Allan was handling everything—inspecting the photos, investigating the story, contacting the MoD, and communicating with "Russell." Does that make sense for someone in his position as photo editor? A case involving an alleged unidentified craft being intercepted by RAF jets seems like something a journalist, not just a photo editor, would cover.
And on the MoD side, we have a press officer conducting his own "investigation" rather than personnel with relevant expertise. The whole setup feels off to me.
Possibly, yes, but there are some issues with that. First, we have Russell's aerodynamically impossible account of a stationary object hovering in the air for a long time before suddenly zipping away at enormous speed—a story that has been repeated countless times by "UFO witnesses." Then there's the handwritten PM, which, to me, seems like a summary of the story Allan told Lindsay when asked for a comment. Notably, it explicitly refers to the object as a "UFO."
That said, the Daily Record reaching out to the MoD for a comment doesn't seem unusual even regarding a traditional "ufo fairy tale". It's exactly what they would do to get a statement to quote in an article. They did the same thing for the 1994 "sighting"—which still resulted in a published article, even though it was such an obvious fake that the journalist couldn't resist throwing in some mocking remarks.
But by 1994, Nick Pope was around—ready to give sensationalist journalists exactly what they wanted…
Mendel
Senior Member.
Where did you find the picture of that page?
Smythe Bacchus
Active Member
From the MOD report transcribed on Reddit:
Article: Description: Large diamond shape UFO hovering for about 10 minutes before ascending vertically upwards at high speed. During sighting RAF aircraft, believed to be a Harrier made a number of low level passes for 5 to 8 minutes before disappearing off.
The view of a hovering Harrier can look like a diamond.
Article: 
What may appear to be aerodynamically impossible could also be a trick of perspective.
Aircraft moving directly towards or away from the observer may give the illusion of slow movement or hovering, especially if the view is in the low information zone, i.e. far enough away to be hard to resolve, poorly lit, or obscured by cloud, fog, or mist. This followed by a rapid in-line ascent could then give the illusion of suddenly "shooting" upwards.
This video includes an interesting albeit brief runway view as two Harriers take off in Scotland.
Article: 
One theory being floated is the Calvine UFO being a distant mountain peak popping out of low cloud. That scenario could be combined with a military fighter plane rising out of the low cloud and rapidly ascending in-line with the mountain peak and the observer. At the right distance, the aircraft could have the same angular size as the mountain peak.
Imagine as an observer, if an element of the landscape in your field of view suddenly appeared to shoot upwards. In your shock, would you photograph it in time? Would you reclassify any photo previously taken of that landscape element as a UFO - and also decide it had been hovering for a long time?
Could the Calvine photo actually have been taken before the alleged UFO event? Was the alleged Harrier the real subject of this photo? Was the later manoeuvring of this Harrier then responsible for the actual UFO event?
Higher cloud moving in with the event could then obscure the mountain peak, thus completing the illusion. Alternately, the cloud clearing up would expose more of the mountain, thus ending its mental association with a UFO.
In the absence of any new and credible information, we will never know.
deirdre
Senior Member.
the archives are online but you have to sign up to see page up close (and you only get 3 free pages enlarged so click careful)
page 5
https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/search/results/1994-02-28?NewspaperTitle=Daily+Record&IssueId=BL/0003741/19940228/&County=Lanarkshire, Scotland
I'd say that might have been possible—if not for the photos. Someone misidentifying a hovering Harrier due to a strange perspective and believing it to be a UFO? Well, stranger things have happened. But failing to recognize it when it finally takes off doesn't make much sense. Most people would also recognize the unmistakable roar of jet engines.
A lot of unlikely factors would have to align for this to be an honest misidentification. On the other hand, if this were a hoax, all it would take is a sheet of glass and a bit of storytelling.
Mendel
Senior Member.
Thank you! It looks to me like the archive scans are black and white, while the paper was not.
• The title page logo is not red
• ads look designed for color
• can't see the halftone stippling in the enlarged picture
• compare:
Here's a 1986 front page with a rather interesting headline for a fake Nessie story.
Last edited:
Smythe Bacchus
Active Member
Don't we have a lot of Sky Identify based on an observer being in the right place at the right time?
Yes I've been following the Calvine photo hoax thread, and read the photo analysis report. It is all very informative.
I thought I'd consider a different "angle" for this thread.
John J.
Senior Member.
You're right, but personally I don't think the Calvine "UFO" is a Harrier or other jet; its edges look quite well-defined.
Agreed.
I can't quote number of decibels, but a Harrier in the hover is extremely loud.
Yeah, well, it's possible, sure. But at the same time… nah, I just don't think so. People misidentify things all the time, but in this case, something feels off. We have the photo—and allegedly five more—showing a jet circling the "UFO." According to the handwritten PM, the jet stayed near the "UFO" for about 5–6 minutes. That's quite a long time. Here's a video of a Harrier flying at an airshow—just imagine how many times a jet could have circled a relatively close object in that span.Don't we have a lot of Sky Identify based on an observer being in the right place at the right time?
Yes I've been following the Calvine photo hoax thread, and read the photo analysis report. It is all very informative.
I thought I'd consider a different "angle" for this thread.
My point is that the whole story feels made up. The MoD found no records of Harriers flying around Calvine on that particular evening, and the entire account sounds exactly like hundreds of other "UFO stories" we've heard before. Why lie about the time or location if you truly believed you had witnessed something extraordinary? Why lie about the sequence of events?
In other words, if we knew who the witness was, then we could talk about possible misidentifications. But with an unknown photographer, the possibility of a pure hoax seems infinitely more likely than anything else. To be honest, it wouldn't be difficult to replicate these pictures using various methods, including small models or silhouettes on glass.
Okay, interesting. But nevertheless, the Daily Record often printed pictures in black and white. Here are some pages from 1997 covering the death of Princess Diana. Apparently, they chose to print a significant portion of the pages in black and white.
John J.
Senior Member.
The archive scans are in black and white. The first page shown in @Mendel's examples is clearly a front page.
As he pointed out, the masthead (title banner at top left) would have been red.
As you say, the Record published some material in colour (from 1971), some in black and white.
The Daily Record, like some other UK tabloid newspapers with various political allegiances but some cultural commonalities, were published with red mastheads for many years before printing other items in colour, hence the term "red tops",
see Origin of the British journalistic term "Red Top" at Word Histories website.
JMartJr
Senior Member.
IF the time estimate is accurate -- but as always, when we have to rely on witness testimony and memory, we get into an area where errors creep in.
Of course, if it was a hoax, this is not an issue, as the number was made up...
Yeah, I totally agree. It's just that the testimony of "5-6 minutes" suggests quite a long time. Witnesses often overestimate durations, sometimes thinking a brief moment lasted a minute or two. But 5-6 minutes indicates to me that someone (Russell?) claimed the jet circled for at least several minutes, possibly more.
deirdre
Senior Member.
thats all the pages in the newspaper published February 28th, 1994. with the craigssomething reservoir ufo in it.
i accessed it from here, in case people are confused. just click feb 28th and youll get Mendels screenshot https://www.britishnewspaperarchive...ewspapertitle=daily+record&sortorder=dayearly
It's said that the Daily Record was a "full-color" publication. Do you know why they printed several pages in black and white? Was it simply cheaper to do so, even if the tabloid itself was a "full-color" publication? And, who decided what was to be published in b/w? The photo editor?
Ann K
Senior Member.
I remember when newspapers began to print in color around here, and there were usually just one or two sheets, the outsides of sections, that used color while the rest were still printed in (cheaper) black and white. "Full color" at that time meant "These pages are in full color", not "All pages are in color".
deirdre
Senior Member.
the scotland daily record [archive] is a bit different than your above pics for that date (link below). and it has 80 pages! so yea that would be pricey to do full color. not sure that has much to do with UFos though. the 1994 paper was 40 pages.
PS it would be really really nice if you would start providing links to all these screenshots you paste.
https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/search/results/1997-09-01/1997-09-30?NewspaperTitle=Daily+Record&IssueId=BL/0003741/19970901/&County=Lanarkshire, Scotland
Last edited:
Sure, I'll make sure to do that. Yeah, obviously, this has nothing to do with UFOs, but it does tell us something about the Daily Record. I think we can conclude that in 1990, the Daily Record printed some of its pictures in black and white. (I'm sure someone with access to old issues could give us an exact percentage.)
We can only speculate whether the "Calvine story", if it had ever been published, would have been featured in color or black and white—and ultimately, that's not something we'll ever know. However, I do think it's relevant to establish that the Daily Record worked with black and white photographs. Otherwise, it would be highly unlikely for them to have made a black and white copy of a color photo. Given their practices, such a copy would be entirely reasonable. This doesn't confirm that's what happened, of course not, but it does provide a plausible explanation for the black and white photo handed over to Lindsay.
Ah, yes, that's what I thought. It was the same in Sweden—newspapers printed some pages in color but often the majority in black and white. I wanted to clarify this because, if that was the standard practice, it would make sense for a newspaper to convert a color photo to black and white. Otherwise, it just wouldn't.
That said, I'm still not sure we've fully sorted out how color photos were prepared for black-and-white printing back in the day. Photos taken by press photographers at the same event were often printed in both color and black and white. For example, a front-page picture might be in color, while the rest of the images illustrating the article were in black and white. It doesn't seem reasonable to expect photographers to know in advance whether their pictures would be printed in color or black and white, which would suggest that color film was often used. If that's true, what was generally done to the color negatives to produce a black-and-white print? Or was it even something you had to do manually, or was it automatically done in some way in the printing process?
It would be really interesting to hear from someone who used to work in tabloid newspaper printing back then.
Mendel
Senior Member.
I have no idea what evidence we're supposed to conclude that from.
Nothing—except that converting color photos to black and white seems like something they occasionally did.
In his analysis, Robinson discusses the possibility of the photographer being somewhat experienced due to the use of black and white film. But if the original photos, as stated in the PM, were actually in color, then all such speculations are pointless (and we would know even less about the photographer).
Last edited:
deirdre
Senior Member.
there are "how'd they make that" videos on all these type processes on youtube. they used "plates" kinda like a big stamp. [..]. its the same concept as printers today..if you set your computer printer to black and white, then only black ink is used, and everything is printed in black and white vs color.
heres a uk printing press in 1990
Source: https://youtu.be/Dgpx1WdbhaY?t=90
then machines changed to a chemical setup (vs a raised stamp) but same concept. this video shows the color set up (start about 3 mins in)
Source: https://youtu.be/s9TldJxHdN4?t=50
Last edited:
Great summary, thanks! I know the basics of the process, but I was specifically wondering about using color material on black and white pages. From what I've been told, it's not as simple as when you set your inkjet printer to black and white mode. I used to work as an editor for a (small, lousy ) magazine back in the early '00s, and my printer always told me never to use color material on black and white pages because it would turn out like garbage. It wasn't a problem for me, though, since I was working digitally and could easily convert the images on my computer.
deirdre
Senior Member.
that kinda makes sense. they use negatives to make the plates, so i imagine you'd get a more "true" b&w print from a b&white negative (the tones would be more true)
Source: https://www.tiktok.com/@sachistorymuseum/video/7010195518261431557
just more fun
Source: https://www.tiktok.com/@manitobamuseum/video/7272788703855103238
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKQiAuTpUic
Mendel
Senior Member.
the point is that the b&w photo looks more like the final product, so you know in advance if it looks good in print or not
deirdre
Senior Member.
i thought that's what i said.
I have a question about the copies of the photograph released by the MoD. As I understand it, they're photocopies, possibly sent by fax, so the poor quality isn't surprising. However, some details puzzle me—though that may just be because I don't know enough about the technology behind Xerox machines.
When inspecting the "UFO" and the jet, their basic shapes remain fairly consistent between the photocopies and Lindsay's original photo. But in the photocopies, they appear outlined, whereas in the original, they're just blurry shapes. The left wing is also just as dark as the rest of the aircraft, even though in Lindsay's photo, it's almost as faint as the background. More importantly, the photocopy shows a rather pointy vertical stabilizer, which simply isn't there in the original photograph.
Could this be an artifact caused by the copying process?
My question to those familiar with Xerox machines is this: Can the outlining effect be explained by the copying machine? I ask because, to me, it almost looks as if someone (Lindsay?) took a photocopy, traced the UFO and jet with a pen to make them more visible, and then sent it via fax. (And in the process, making it more "Harrier like".)This would make sense, considering how difficult it must have been to produce a usable copy with clearly distinguishable features.
This may be a minor detail in the grand scheme of things, but it's still interesting when examining the "jet." If we assume it's a Harrier, a vertical stabilizer should be visible regardless of the jet's banking angle. However, if it's a Hunter, no such stabilizer would be seen.
When inspecting the "UFO" and the jet, their basic shapes remain fairly consistent between the photocopies and Lindsay's original photo. But in the photocopies, they appear outlined, whereas in the original, they're just blurry shapes. The left wing is also just as dark as the rest of the aircraft, even though in Lindsay's photo, it's almost as faint as the background. More importantly, the photocopy shows a rather pointy vertical stabilizer, which simply isn't there in the original photograph.
Could this be an artifact caused by the copying process?
My question to those familiar with Xerox machines is this: Can the outlining effect be explained by the copying machine? I ask because, to me, it almost looks as if someone (Lindsay?) took a photocopy, traced the UFO and jet with a pen to make them more visible, and then sent it via fax. (And in the process, making it more "Harrier like".)This would make sense, considering how difficult it must have been to produce a usable copy with clearly distinguishable features.
This may be a minor detail in the grand scheme of things, but it's still interesting when examining the "jet." If we assume it's a Harrier, a vertical stabilizer should be visible regardless of the jet's banking angle. However, if it's a Hunter, no such stabilizer would be seen.
Mendel
Senior Member.
fax machines would typically have 2 modes, one for images and one for text. the text mode would do some simple processing to make letter shapes stand out more, and I'd expect (but don't know) that the "outline" could be attributed to that. Pen tracing would hardly be so pixel perfect as your comparison shows the outline to be.
Sounds reasonable. But what feels a bit strange is that the outline sometimes doesn't match the shapes seen in Lindsay's photo. It's as if, decades before AI, the fax machine somehow managed to add a wing and a vertical stabilizer to the picture…
deirdre
Senior Member.
well photographs do fade with time too.
Similar threads
