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.

 

[Andreas]

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.

Fair point. It's obviously the best photo of the "object". Not necessarily of the jet. But on the other hand. If the "ufo" is sharp, the jet would probably be too.

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"

And this is interesting. To me, this indicates that one photo shows the UFO and a jet, a second photo shows the UFO and a blurry dot that might be a second jet (a.k.a. the same jet but in another angle), and the other four photos show just the UFO. That's my interpretation. The witness didn't mention a second jet, and reading the PM literally, this seems like a plausible explanation.

There's a bit of inconsistency or inaccuracy about what the third image is, but Clarke is relating this in an interview

Well, personally, I wouldn't take Lindsay's old recollections too seriously. I don't think the old man is lying, but it's still just the word of a single person—a civil servant remembering things that happened in 1990. Nick Pope accepted the possibility that he might have misremembered aspects of the story. I think Lindsay should do the same.

David Clarke gave me access to an interview he conducted with an MoD officer regarding the case. I promised him not to share this information, but I can say that the interview was quite strange, filled with leading questions and morbid speculation. If the interviews with Lindsay were conducted in the same way, I'm not surprised that he "remembered" all sorts of details.

 

[John J.]

Well, personally, I wouldn't take Lindsay's old recollections too seriously

I think it's very possible that the recollections might contain mistakes/ be mistaken, just as many other people's recollections might after 31 years.
In the same article, Clarke wonders if Lindsay had misremembered the claim that the witness(es) worked at the Atholl Palace Hotel.
I don't think the account changes anything about the Calvine photo we know, or makes it less likely to be a hoax.

To me, this indicates... ...a second photo shows the UFO and a blurry dot that might be a second jet (a.k.a. the same jet but in another angle)...

I don't think Clarke's account of Lindsay's description

...there's a third image that shows a second harrier at a further distance and the harrier you can see there

(my italics) leads to that interpretation. (This doesn't mean Clarke's account, based on Lindsey's descriptions, was accurate).

Clarke, talking about Lindsay's description, appears to say that the third and fourth photos show "our" aircraft, which is first seen in the second photo (the Calvine photo we're familiar with), in different places.
The fifth photo "...shows a second Harrier... and the Harrier you can see there", the latter being the aircraft in the Calvine photo we know about.
It sounds like Clarke and his interviewer James Fox had the photo (or a copy) in front of them while discussing this.
The fifth photo, in this account, contains both the (presumed) same single aircraft as the preceding three photos, and a second aircraft. I think!

I wondered if Craig Lindsay heard (either around the time of his Autumn 1990 London visit or later) about the second "barely visible second aircraft" mentioned in the 14 September 1990 loose minute, and if this might have coloured his recollections.

 

[JMartJr]

I think such a islet could be more easily identifiable.

How?

IF it is a hoax made by shooting a neat illusion created by a reflection of a small island or rock in some body of water, then being a hoax there is zero reason to think any of the information supplied about where and when the photo was taken is correct. I would think that such information would be especially likely to be obfuscated if the hoax was done using a permanent feature of the landscape -- people going to the site where you hung an object on a string would not be likely to spot evidence of that, people going to where you photographed a very distinctive looking little island would definitely spot it, so a successful hoax DEPENDS on not being honest about where it was taken.

So how easy would it be to locate an island or rock that could be literally anywhere in Britain, or even elsewhere?

(Re-disclosure -- Myself, I don't think it is an island or rock. It COULD be, but thing-on-string seems simpler and more likely, as it has been seen in UFO pics since the beginning... Either would be very massively more likely than visitors from Omicron Persei 8: we know islands and small things to hang on strings exist, and are plentiful here on Earth, we do not know if there are aliens, and if there are we do not know if they have ever or will ever come to Earth.)

 

[Ann K]

How?

Not an easy task. For starters, a different level of water could make a great change in the appearance of an islet, or could cover it completely. Nearby Loch Tummel itself is seven miles long, and it's only one of the suggested sites. There's certainly nothing that would suggest a recognizable object, especially if it's viewed from a different angle. (And, if it's an object reflected in water, the photo is of necessity taken at a downward angle.)

OT, sort of: Europe has been having a severe drought of late, which has exposed everything from Neolithic sites to WWII ships, tanks, and armament that have been covered by water for many decades. If you're interested, many photos at this site.
https://www.france24.com/en/europe/...hips-grounds-boats-europe-river-levels-plunge

 

[NorCal Dave]

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.

I think you got your EX mixed up. Something I've done a lot. The last 1/2 of your post is you, not External Content. Might still be fixable.

 

[Andreas]

I think you got your EX mixed up. Something I've done a lot. The last 1/2 of your post is you, not External Content. Might still be fixable.

Fixed it!

 

[Andreas]

I don't think Clarke's account of Lindsay's description
(my italics) leads to that interpretation. (This doesn't mean Clarke's account, based on Lindsey's descriptions, was accurate).

Yeah, I mean, we probably should take Lindsay's recollections for what they are—decades-old memories from an old man, mixed with things he'd read, heard, and been told. If he hadn't read them before, I'm sure Clarke showed him the loose minute and handwritten note prior to interviewing him. Did he ever see the additional five photos, and did he even make that call to the alleged "witness"? I wouldn't bet my money on it, and regardless, it's a classic "trust me bro".

One of the strangest things in the whole story is the tale of poster-sized enlargements sitting on the wall of the Sec(AS)2a offices, as well as in other places at the MoD. Had such materials existed in 1991, using crap-quality photocopies on OH film when asking for a renewed analysis seems rather strange. And the main source for the poster story is Nick Pope, a self-proclaimed "UK Fox Mulder". Mulder had his iconic poster, and I'm sure Nick wanted one too.

Robinson takes the story rather literally. He explains:

https://anthologycouk.substack.com/p/string-theory-tangled-up-in-calvine-073

In numerous interviews Nick Pope has described how, sometime in late 1991 or 1992, his Head of Section John Clark, removed the poster sized print of the Calvine UFO from his office wall. At around the same time the matching poster on the wall of the DI55 office was also taken down and it is quite possible that at this time all Calvine materials were removed from the Sec(AS)2 and DI55 files.

But when I asked Nick about this, he claimed:

Email from Nick Pope, 2 December 2025:

I can't recall exactly when it was removed, but I think it was in late 1993 or early 1994, after my Head of Division had convinced himself that the image showed a secret, prototype aircraft, and that this shouldn't be on open display.

Apparently, aspects of this story differ over time, and I'm not convinced any high quality "posters" ever existed. We know they had the low-quality photocopies made from Lindsay's fax. They made VU foils from them, and possibly also enlargements (possibly poster-sized ones?). And when Pope made his "CGI recreation" back in 2016 (?), before Lindsay's photo surfaced, it was suspiciously similar to the photocopy. But it lacked all the details seen in the original photo.

If a UFO enthusiast like Pope had seen a huge, poster-sized version of the photocopy for several years, sitting on his office wall, wouldn't he have remembered the branches, or at least the prominent fence?!

To me, this is a great example of a story growing over time. Someone "remembers" something, and new details are added to the soup. The biggest problem I have with Robinson's conclusions is that he uses hearsay as evidence and lets it affect his analysis of the photograph itself. He agrees that it could be a photomontage, since it would be difficult to spot such hoaxery in a second-generation reproduction of the photograph. But according to him, it's still unlikely because of the "poster-size enlargement" story. Without knowing the accuracy of this story, however, such speculation is rather useless.