Claim: Original Calvine UFO Photo

deirdre

Senior Member.
Well it is definitely 'on' the photograph.
That part of the 'ufo' is 100 percent on the photograph and isn't altered by the processing that I mentioned.
I simply 'enhanced ' that area and those darker / antenna / pixels are on the photo in that spot and not anywhere else surrounding it to that amount that is.

When you work with ' pixels ' and small details like this all of the time it is real.
If ( silly I know ) I was restoring this photograph that 'antenna' wire / hair would most assuredly be in it.

Anyway that's my input to help out.

i'm not saying its real life hair. i mean the pixels seem to be forming a hair shape vs the regular jagged pixel edge im used to seeing in enlarged photos.

1660794515636.png
 
D

Deleted member 17800

Guest
Those are much lower resolution shades of light and dark that merge to form a photon of light upon the paper physical print.
The actual photograph itself the physical sheet of paper will have grain.
All photographic paper no matter the quality will have grain if zoomed upon enough.
This particular ' ufo print ' is on very average quality paper and those ' hairs ' are found on absolutely every solitary restoration I have undertaken in 35 years.
That is the process of actual processing upon the photo / all photos no matter the resolution if printed ' poorly or not' will show that shimmer / merge of colour when zoomed right in.
There is no /' colour ' on the wire . hair / antenna that matches the pixels nearest it.
Not on the ' ufo' nor outside of it the sky etc.
So I stand by my first measure . :) I'm NOT saying I know absolute what it is .

Below is a super sharp image that I have sold in a gallery to give an example.
If one zooms far enough the actual pixels form upon every shade of light and dark as above said.
Here even having cut the photo massively one can still see little ' hair ' pixels merging.
That is because of the resolution on the large print ( I do huge photos minimum A3 and up.

Yet if you zoomed in further that 'hair' pixel merge will be everywhere. P.S that bug is slightly smaller than a match head :)

I hope this doesn't read dogmatic that wasn't isn't my intentions :)
 

Attachments

  • example one.jpg
    example one.jpg
    179 KB · Views: 17
  • ladybird leaf watermarked.jpg
    ladybird leaf watermarked.jpg
    130 KB · Views: 23
Last edited by a moderator:

Rory

Senior Member.
Not sure what the point is my friend. Pope is a bit of a UK Elizando with a self-inflated CV and an eye for UFO mystery mongering

Just gathering info, and whatever we think about him he was very close to the material, the people, and the date.

Also interesting to see how his story might have changed over the years.

Keep up the good work Chelle!
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
I then remove the UV guide filter, adjust the focus and click the shudder open. I now have a picture of the sky, fence and trees with my UFO hovering there. Now the only real bit of trickery, is that my camera has to allow me to open the shutter again without advancing the film. I don't recall my old K1000 being able to do this, but I don't think its insurmountable. Assuming I can do this, it's off to step 2.

I take the camera off the tripod for shooting the field and set up another one that lets my camera shoot into the cardboard box. I place my UV guide filter back on and turn on a flashlight behind the box to shine through the cutout of the plane. While the scale is clearly off, I should see something like this in my viewfinder:

1660782167361.png

Once I line up my cutout with my guide marks, I remove the UV guide filter and then defocus as much as possible, making the plane fuzzy. I then click my shutter, and basically burn a fuzzy image of the plane onto the sky of the already existing negative in my camera.

I now have a composited photo with my UFO model, the scene and a fuzzy looking Harrier in the distances.
My old camera let me reset the shutter by pushing the pin for rewinding to disengage the transport lever and then using it.

However, I don't understand
• how the marks on the UV filter could be in focus in the viewfinder
• how a "white" aircraft shows up dark on the print
• how you'd get a consistent flight path if you have to take the camera off and on the tripod for each shot, without revealing that you used one: for that handheld vibe, the camera should be pointing somewhere else for each shot.
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
Just a NOTE I'd like to add.
If someone could go to ( I believe someone already has ) and stood in the presumed spot the following is possible re my earlier posts of colouring.
What is known ' stacking ' is a method that adds depth and contrast and a plethora of other ' enhancements to the photo.
My main use is macro ( nature / wildlife.
Example using say an 85 mm pro lens one is at maximum and minimum focal distance from say that ladybird or wasp being taken.

It sounds a little crude but you literally rock to and fro oh so tiny movements altering settings for desired outcome..
This captures the shadow ( at macro level a wide focal range is extremely difficult ).
Then after during editing one stacks ( layers ) each photo to make a montage.

When processed correctly you lose that focal bokeh / blur and can then see the shape of the petals the colour / shadow/ details and it makes for a pleasing final photo.
Macro is my personal thing and it isn't what I sell as a skill it is if you like my whim within what I do,

To conclude:
At the Calvine spot if multiple photos taken at multiple focal lengths ( focusing on foreground / background and all and any in between then a similar montage would help determine colour.

That ' ufo ' would if it is presumably reflective have bounced light and shadow of perhaps the valley the hills etc. One would NOT need to rock :)

Obviously the 'ufo' would not be there but with my afore previous mentioned painting by pixel shade it would make life much easier to afford a possible colouring.

Below is a species of beetle or ladybird for example. The ladybird is focused and is about the size of a matchstick head but ' i wanted ' the rest to have bokeh for affect.
So imagine ALL of the photograph in focus re stacking.

Thank you for reading.
How do you stack with film?
 

Charlie Wiser

Active Member
Well it is definitely 'on' the photograph.
That part of the 'ufo' is 100 percent on the photograph and isn't altered by the processing that I mentioned.
I simply 'enhanced ' that area and those darker / antenna / pixels are on the photo in that spot and not anywhere else surrounding it to that amount that is.
Someone who is convinced the UFO shape is a mountain peak told me they think that "hair" on top is a peak marker - something like this:
1660807239287.png
 
D

Deleted member 17800

Guest
How do you stack with film?
Stacking with film was not something that so far I know was broadly done until digital imagery.
You take a shot in sharp focus of all points of reference.
The furthest.
The middle and all in between and the foreground.
They must be done relatively quickly. One can alter camera settings accordingly.
They are then placed on top of each other / merging / stacking them with an editing prog.
The image can be quite breathtaking and it is used for wide lenses and landscapes and macro of what I have posted an image about earlier.
 
D

Deleted member 17800

Guest
Someone who is convinced the UFO shape is a mountain peak told me they think that "hair" on top is a peak marker - something like this:
1660807239287.png
There doesn't appear to be anything within the photo frame of reference that would allow for a peak.
One would see it visibly within the image.
It's actually a shame the ' ufo ' wasn't taken lower down so we could define the hills the valley etc.
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
Stacking with film was not something that so far I know was broadly done until digital imagery.
You take a shot in sharp focus of all points of reference.
The furthest.
The middle and all in between and the foreground.
They must be done relatively quickly. One can alter camera settings accordingly.
They are then placed on top of each other / merging / stacking them with an editing prog.
The image can be quite breathtaking and it is used for wide lenses and landscapes and macro of what I have posted an image about earlier.
I know this, I am a macro photographer who has created many stacked image photos, what I am trying to assess is why you think this is relevant to this discussion of this photo which was shot on film?
 

DavidB66

Senior Member
Yah, I don't think we've really talked about that. It's in the DI55 papers obtained in one of the FOIA releases. Pretty much everything that's pertinent is here:
Thanks. The 'retask' doesn't seem to have amounted to a major re-investigation (interviewing witnesses, etc). I see that the document states that original negatives are no longer available. This tends to conform the 'official' story that they were returned to the newspaper. Unless the MoD managed to lose them.
 
237 OCU at Lossiemouth had Hunters and Buckaneers at this point. No Harriers.
its the closest mil.airfield to Calvine.

if i make a ( fictional ) reconstruction timeline :
- 2 witnesses start to see a UFO for in total 10 mins.
- after 6 (?) mins of their encounter jets appear.
- 4 mins later UFO disappears vertically towards the sky.

- So how long would it take to fly a Hunter toward the location if they flew from Lossiemouth ?
- How long would it take a Harrier to get to the location from ( unknown for me ) nearest mil.airfield with Harriers at that time ?

they saw it around 09:15 pm ( correct me if i am wrong ) so what time would a Radarpost detect the object and scramble 2 jets ?

i have a feeling that the planes and their departures somehow are important to this story, and i dont know why.

From everything I've read, I don't believe that Harriers were ever on quick reaction alert (QRA). Simply not fast enough compared to, say, a Tornado. So if it IS a Harrier, I don't think it would have been scrambled to get there. It was there either by chance or design.
 
D

Deleted member 17800

Guest
I know this, I am a macro photographer who has created many stacked image photos, what I am trying to assess is why you think this is relevant to this discussion of this photo which was shot on film?
You've jumped the gun my friend.
I suggest that perhaps you go read back to my original post.
It is clearly explained.
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
You've jumped the gun my friend.
I suggest that perhaps you go read back to my original post.
It is clearly explained.

"At the Calvine spot if multiple photos taken at multiple focal lengths ( focusing on foreground / background and all and any in between then a similar montage would help determine colour."

You are suggesting that if someone went to the location (which we do not know) and took a focus stacked image of the landscape (not strictly really necessary given wide angles lenses have short hyperfocal distances) we would learn something useful?

Can you break it down a bit more?
 
D

Deleted member 17800

Guest
"At the Calvine spot if multiple photos taken at multiple focal lengths ( focusing on foreground / background and all and any in between then a similar montage would help determine colour."

You are suggesting that if someone went to the location (which we do not know) and took a focus stacked image of the landscape (not strictly really necessary given wide angles lenses have short hyperfocal distances) we would learn something useful?

Can you break it down a bit more?
I restore photographs of the damaged variety for museums and consumer.
The post was to determine the ' appropriate colouring of the image of which was discussed prior.
To do so at pixel level may help to determine the shades / pixels that could represent the colour of the ' ufo' photograph.
I discussed this at length previously.

All proximate pixels contain shades of colour be that black and white or not.
So that could / would possibly determine the colour or reflections/image ( if any ) within the original ' ufo'.

A very complex paint by numbers / shades if you like.
I have been doing this professionally for over 35 years or so.

I would not attempt to colourise said because I simply don't have the time.

To conclude:
The proposal alongside other posts related that I have written could / would / possibly help determine original colour.

Sorry but perhaps you need to read the full discussion to understand the point.
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
I restore photographs of the damaged variety for museums and consumer.
The post was to determine the ' appropriate colouring of the image of which was discussed prior.
To do so at pixel level may help to determine the shades / pixels that could represent the colour of the ' ufo' photograph.
I discussed this at length previously.

All proximate pixels contain shades of colour be that black and white or not.
So that could / would possibly determine the colour or reflections/image ( if any ) within the original ' ufo'.

A very complex paint by numbers / shades if you like.
I have been doing this professionally for over 35 years or so.

I would not attempt to colourise said because I simply don't have the time.

To conclude:
The proposal alongside other posts related that I have written could / would / possibly help determine original colour.

Sorry but perhaps you need to read the full discussion to understand the point.
So this would require knowing the location and season etc the photo was taken to take an accurate reference, and that the same foliage etc was present, to match the colours?

And the object in question would need to be present or "assumed" in order to know what colour it might reflect?

I think my confusion was as to how focus stacking would help..
 

Ravi

Senior Member.
Just as a note. Analogue Focus stacking outdoors and in a non-macro/tripod situation, is IMO impossible.
 

john.phil

Member
One thing that crossed my mind is that hoaxers rarely are successful on first try and usually don't stop trying, especially after they were able to get money for a photo. Are there any other relevant UFO or Nessie pictures that came to light in Scotland, just before or after the Calvine photo? It could help track down the identities of the duo if they are from the area.
 

jackfrostvc

Senior Member
I noticed the thing sticking out the top of the object today also, when I was fiddling with the image and adjusting the contrast.
TBH, seeing this thing under a tree like that, the first thing that comes to mind s a model(s) hanging from a tree. BTW, I heard the Puerto Rico diamond UFO and aircraft pic was allegedly faked that exact way.

So seeing that thing on the top of the object, just adds to it possibly being models(s) hanging from the tree above
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
One thing that crossed my mind is that hoaxers rarely are successful on first try and usually don't stop trying, especially after they were able to get money for a photo. Are there any other relevant UFO or Nessie pictures that came to light in Scotland, just before or after the Calvine photo? It could help track down the identities of the duo if they are from the area.
I would day getting the photos bought by the paper and then a subsequent call from the MOD might count as a success..

The internet didn't really exist in those days to spread the photo across Reddit/UFO Twitter.
 

john.phil

Member
I would day getting the photos bought by the paper and then a subsequent call from the MOD might count as a success..

The internet didn't really exist in those days to spread the photo across Reddit/UFO Twitter.
I don't know why you're mentioning the internet.

I'd say getting a call from the MOD is not necessarily a success, as it could easily scare them, making them go on hiding or stay low for a while, given their presumed ages at the time. But money for photos and fame are definitely a huge incentive.
 

Tomer

Member
As someone on Reddit has pointed out, there appears to be a mild circle on the left-hand side of the supposed craft.
Any idea what this is? Some sort of processing mark?
 

Attachments

  • 86i38ly57bi91-1.jpeg
    86i38ly57bi91-1.jpeg
    90.9 KB · Views: 20
  • d3j7gly57bi91.jpeg
    d3j7gly57bi91.jpeg
    90.1 KB · Views: 25

CaptainCourgette

Active Member
There were 6 photos taken right?
So why don't we see the other 5, yes this blurry photo may be the best of the bunch but still having 5 more photo's may share more details
 

Darat

New Member
The simple answer is that the hoaxer knew where planes were likely to be seen low level and he set up there and waited. However, after seeing the Peurto Rico photo I got to thinking.

I'm just spit balling here, but I think I figured a way to make the photo simply with minimal effort, sans aircraft. It may also answer a few other niggling details, such as why B&W and why give all 6 of your original negatives to the paper?

...snip...
The photo isn't black and white. The vegetation is green - albeit a dark green, as is the UFO.
 

Duke

Active Member
I've read a number of theories here about how the photo(s) could have been hoaxed. As someone who readily admits no knowledge or interest in photography, I'm in no position to judge whether those theories make sense or not. But let's say one or some combination of those theories was actually used, would the resulting photographic images have been so good they could have fooled the 1990 photographic analysis capabilities of the MoD? Wouldn't they have seen a string, or recognized a composite photo?
 
Last edited:

deirdre

Senior Member.
As someone on Reddit has pointed out, there appears to be a mild circle on the left-hand side of the supposed craft.
Any idea what this is? Some sort of processing mark?
the moon? do you know how to see where and when the moon was over scotland?

??
Article:
During this Waxing Gibbous phase the moon will rise in the east in the mid- to late-afternoon and will be high in the eastern sky at sunset.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
would the resulting photographic images have been so good the could have fooled the 1990 photographic analysis capabilities of the MoD? Wouldn't they have seen a string, or recognized a composite photo?
they would if the photos were so BAD that you can't make out anything.
 

DavidB66

Senior Member
There were 6 photos taken right?
So why don't we see the other 5, yes this blurry photo may be the best of the bunch but still having 5 more photo's may share more details
We are only seeing one photo because the MoD press officer, Craig Lindsay, kept a copy of that one for his personal collection! The other 5 are all lost, destroyed, or locked away. As noted in #330, above the MoD no longer had the original negatives in late 1991, barely a year after the incident. But there may still be still be copies or 'line drawings' as requested to be made at that time. Incidentally, I note that the request was for 5 drawings, whereas the sources say there were 6 photos. Perhaps one photo was so bad that it didn't seem worth using? If the copies/drawings still exist they could be very useful e.g. in showing successive positions of the 'Harrier' relative to the object. But according to David Clarke, only a photocopy of one photo is in the National Archives. The negatives were supposedly returned to the Daily Record, but they don't seem to have them either. An obvious remaining possibility is that original photographer took copies as well, but, like the dog that didn't bark in the night, the silence of the two witnesses is one of the most striking features of the case. If they were in their late teens in 1990, they would be in their early 50s now, so probably neither dead nor senile.
 

dimebag2

Active Member
Looks like the moon was near horizon at 9:15pm in Calvine, on August 4th 1990 (Time is PST time from my PC, add 8 hours for Scotland-> 9:15pm).

1660833870313.png
 

Attachments

  • 1660833644289.png
    1660833644289.png
    645.9 KB · Views: 18

Unys

New Member
Regarding the testimony of Lindsay the Press Officer. He states he rang the number the witness had provided and the call was answered with the name of the Atholl Palace Hotel (Pitlochry). He then asked if 'Witness X was available, the employee on the phone immediately confirmed he was and said they would get him. Witness X then comes to the phone and is interviewed.

I used to work in country house hotels, and In every such hotel I worked in from 1985 - 2003 staff personal calls were not allowed at work. Instead, there would be a payphone in the staff accommodation and perhaps also the staff room. This was because in the pre-internet age customers primarily booked over the phone by credit card, with the remainder booking by post. A hotel could not allow a seasonal dishwasher to hog a precious phone line with a personal call and if you let one junior staff member do it, they would all want that privilege (this was pre-mobile phones)

The Atholl Palace is a large building, has 106 bedrooms and this call was made in early September and so still the height of the tourist season. I'm struggling with the concept that the employee who answered the call would have immediately known that a seasonal dishwasher was not only at work but also close by to take the call. Also the employee left whatever task they were doing to go and get him. At best, I feel the call would have been transferred to the kitchen or a staff phone.

Perhaps that's how it happened and by coincidence Witness X happened to be close by, but it seems unlikely, dishwashers are at the bottom end of the hotel 'food chain' and rarely even allowed front of house. However, if he rang a pub then, yes, I could see the bar person nipping into the kitchen to fetch him. I don't think Lindsay is being intentionally deceptive, but he didn't write the hotel name in that transcript and so is relying on memory.

Incidentally, there is The Atholl Arms pub in Glasgow, eight minutes from the Daily Record building where presumably the photos were delivered? Maybe another coincidence, however, Clarke has said three members of the Atholl Palace Hotel staff from 1990 have no recollection of the witnesses or the incident, despite one having been a receptionist and one the then head chef. Perhaps Lindsay or the MoD could reveal the number he rang as it wasn't seemingly personal to the witness.
 
Last edited:

Rory

Senior Member.
One thing that crossed my mind is that hoaxers rarely are successful on first try and usually don't stop trying

Any evidential support for this statement? I've seen it said a few times but it doesn't strike me as true.
 

Duke

Active Member
I used to work in country house hotels, and In every such hotel I worked in from 1985 - 2003 staff personal calls were not allowed at work.
I submit this wasn't a personal call, it was a call from a representative of HMG conducting offical business. I get your point, and it's valid for 1990, but a call would be infinitely more desirable to management than having uniformed officals from the MoD showing up in person and making inquiries in front of paying guests.
 
Last edited:

NorCal Dave

Senior Member.
However, I don't understand
• how the marks on the UV filter could be in focus in the viewfinder
• how a "white" aircraft shows up dark on the print
• how you'd get a consistent flight path if you have to take the camera off and on the tripod for each shot, without revealing that you used one: for that handheld vibe, the camera should be pointing somewhere else for each shot.
You are correct sir. It would NOT work. I realized on this morning's walk that I got my negatives and positives mixed up. This set up would make a white plane, not dark. Too late to edit, so I'll just have to own my glaring error.:(

Was just thinking that the plane mimics the Puerto Rico image and gives this photo authenticity but is little more than a fuzzy silhouette. It seems the likely element to composite into the photo. If that's the case, it eliminates the need to find a rouge Harrier in Scotland.

I think the guidelines would have worked to line up the elements in the photo even though the camera is being moved between the 2 tripods. Assuming one could see the lines, which as you pointed out may be an issue.
 
Top