Claim: Original Calvine UFO Photo

[John J.]

...it would appear that this was thought to be the best one (in regard to the image of the plane).

Wouldn't it make more sense for the Daily Record to send Lindsay a print with the best image of the object?
It might also be the best image of the plane, but I'm not sure we know that.

On a different note, while looking for whether the photo was claimed to be the best of the plane, object or both, I found this on David Clarke's Substack article "Craig Lindsay and The Calvine UFO - Transcript", 30 December 2024 https://anthologycouk.substack.com/p/craig-lindsay-and-the-calvine-ufo.
It might be the only description we have of the other photos, other than the 14 September 1990 MoD loose minute reference to "...a barely visible second aircraft, again probably a Harrier" (post 70). If I read it before it didn't stick; apologies if it has already been discussed.

Clarke says

So later that year - I think it must have been in October/November 1990 - he [Craig Lindsay] went on a trip to London which was apparently a regular meeting of all the different press officers from around the UK met up at MOD main building for a conference quite regularly. This story was still on his mind, so he thought well… 'I've got security clearance to get into the offices upstairs so I'll go and see my contact at the UFO desk' - presumably Owen Hartop - so he went upstairs and opened the door to this room, Secretariat Air Staff, and walked into the room and lo and behold, directly across from the main door… a poster size… huge version of this photograph on the wall and he said 'what's happening with this photograph?'. They said 'well we sent it to our photographic experts'... ...It wasn't a prank or a hoax, that's what he was told, and that's the moment apparently when he saw all six of them together. They must have been laid out on a table or something like that, so he was able to see the other images of the aircraft manoeuvring around the object.

The first image just shows the strange object; the second image is the one you're looking at; there's another image showing the aircraft manoeuvring around the object in a different position, and another, there's a third image that shows a second harrier at a further distance and the harrier you can see there and then another image just showing the strange unidentified object. So you've got a strip of negatives showing this sequence of events.

There's a bit of inconsistency or inaccuracy about what the third image is, but Clarke is relating this in an interview and I think this is understandable.
I think it can be read as (image number in brackets),
"The first image just shows the strange object [1]; the second image is the one you're looking at [2]; there's another image showing the aircraft manoeuvring around the object in a different position [3], and another [4], there's a third image that shows a second harrier at a further distance [5] and the harrier you can see there and then another image just showing the strange unidentified object [6]."

I have no idea how the UFO desk worked, but I am a bit surprised that 2 or 3 months after the claimed 04 August sighting, probably at least 2 weeks (possibly several more) after any "official" photographic analysis and the subsequent loose minute of 14 September, all six photos happened to be in clear view when Lindsay arrived. Clarke says that Lindsay went to see his "contact at the UFO desk", perhaps Lindsay had advised his "contact" of his intended visit (or requested a visit) beforehand, and that person had got the photos out specifically for Lindsay? Supposition of course.

Clarke first contacted Lindsay in August 2021 (Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvine_UFO_photograph), so Lindsay would have been talking about something that happened almost 31 years earlier. As far as we know Lindsay didn't make any notes about the photos during or after this incident (Clarke doesn't mention any).
We don't know if Lindsay would have been made aware of the conclusions of the 14 September loose minute (including mention of a second aircraft).
Without any other descriptions of the missing 5 photos, or the photos themselves, I think this account is interesting but it is dependent on one person's recall. It doesn't rule out a set of hoax photos, though it might imply more than 1 aircraft model/ silhouette.

 

[Andreas]

Personally, I still believe it's a tiny islet reflected in a loch, the "hoax" part being the story concocted after they looked at the photos that were taken to show reflections of planes going past. I mean, the thing looks like it actually has twigs and grass and rocks on it, and the reflection shows similar light and dark patches. (And no, I'm not going to explain reflections again to people who don't, or refuse to, understand the optics of reflections. This is me being rude to certain members whose names I have deliberately forgotten.) References were made to photos, plural, but it would appear that this was thought to be the best one (in regard to the image of the plane).

Fair. It's a possibility for sure. Personally, I see three main possibilities: models on strings, a reflection in a lake, or a simple case of cut-and-paste photomontage. The latter is a tempting idea indeed, and I asked Robinson about this in an email. His answer wasn't that reassuring:

Email from Andrew Robinson, 13 August 2026:

The copying process of the single Lindsay print might further disguise an existing cut and paste however such a montage would need to have been convincing on all six original images to pass MoD scrutiny… …I can see no evidence of cut and paste and I've inspected the grain distribution across the edges of the UFO and this shows continuous grain with no disruption… …Using a cut and paste technique to insert a UFO into a series of genuine fine grain photos of a plane flying past and then rephotographing this on a film with higher grain to disguise the join would be possible and could be hard to spot however to do this in 1990 using analogue techniques sufficiently successfully to convince numerous people including image analysts would be complex, time consuming and require professional equipment.

In other words, it would take someone with too much spare time and access to a darkroom. Hmm, not that unthinkable, is it?! Also, Robinson puts a lot of faith in the MoD investigation. But we don't really have any good reason to believe that they took the case particularly seriously, and the negatives were returned after only a couple of days.

My point being: it could, without a doubt, be a hoax created using small models on strings, but it could also be a reflection or a case of old-school cut-and-paste. These three alternatives can then be weighed against claims involving anti-gravity craft and space aliens.

And regarding the additional five photos that are now lost: yeah, we know very little about them. I'm quite sure there were six photos in total and that they were probably in colour. But what did they actually look like? I asked Nick Pope about this, and it soon became apparent that he probably hadn't seen any of them.

I'm not claiming to know, because obviously I don't. But to me, it appears that the six negatives were "looked at" for a couple of days in September 1990 and then sent back to the Daily Record. From that point on, the only thing that remained at the MoD was the very frame depicted in Lindsay's old copy. And yes, it was probably the "best" frame, since the Daily Record chose to send this one to Lindsay rather than any of the other five.

 

[Fritzkquzerk]

Personally, I still believe it's a tiny islet reflected in a loch, the "hoax" part being the story concocted after they looked at the photos that were taken to show reflections of planes going past. I mean, the thing looks like it actually has twigs and grass and rocks on it, and the reflection shows similar light and dark patches. (And no, I'm not going to explain reflections again to people who don't, or refuse to, understand the optics of reflections. This is me being rude to certain members whose names I have deliberately forgotten.) References were made to photos, plural, but it would appear that this was thought to be the best one (in regard to the image of the plane).

I think such a islet could be more easily identifiable.
It has a more regular shape, also it's difficult to tell if there's water at all in the photo.
I think a suspended model is more likely.

 

[Andreas]

I think such a islet could be more easily identifiable.
It has a more regular shape, also it's difficult to tell if there's water at all in the photo.
I think a suspended model is more likely.

I do too. BUT. It could be a small stone or rock. Identifying it would be literally impossible.