Claim: Original Calvine UFO Photo

[Giddierone]

I think they didn't include the foreground trees and fence in the mock up photo because there are none on the path they walked for that photo (you'd have to scale a deer fence in order to get overhanging foliage in the shot. At Calvine there are basically two hills to walk to get up high, they chose the wide gravel one - the easier of the two. The other leading up to An Teampan is more winding (time consuming).

 

[Giddierone]

Yes. A black-and-white negative created when black-and-white film was loaded into the repro camera. They had a color photo, took a B&W repro photo of it, developed the film, and had it printed on color paper.

I'd missed that part. So, given it's a photo of a photo that seems to make Robinson's statement about film grain redundant:

The film grain distribution suggests that no negative or print based manipulation of the image has taken place and that the image is a genuine representation of a scene in front of the camera.

So, there's no good reason to assume it's represents what was in front of the actual camera.

 

[jon_eir]

I think it's valid to consider the claim that a poster of the Calvine "UFO" was visible for some years at Sec (AS) 2a, and that Nick Pope saw it there. We know Pope was involved in the Channel 5 program and may have given input on the object's appearance based on his claim.
That is why I mentioned the mock-up. I was very sceptical of Pope's account, but on reflection perhaps less so.

Nick pope "claimed" to have saw it there, he "claimed" there was a poster and he "may" have had input into the recreation. Pope refused to comment on whether the photo this thread is about he had actually seen. It may be a valid conversation in it its own right but is this thread the place to have it- Thread title is "Original Calvine UFO Photo"

-I put that to you earlier with the supporting quotes.

"I'm asking what are the grounds for speculating about the artist recreation given the title of this thread

Neither the MoD nor Nick Pope has commented on the provenance of the Craig Lindsay image, and Nick Pope has neither confirmed nor denied that it's one of the originals that he had access to at the MoD

if you think its valid address all the counter points I made maybe?

from nick own sites states he "teamed up with a graphic artist" to make the mock up you are discussing. whether anyone else was involved, what input/creative license the graphic artist or influence production had we dont know, remember it was a tv show. The identities of the other two MoD colleagues is unknown.

Neither the vu-foils the photocopies or recently uncovered photo have the fore/background that's in the recreated image. The fence line is only in the most recently recovered photo. I just think just too much speculation has to be done to infer anything about Pope what may or not may have seen and what these images show

what about the the fact that the recreation had foreground and background. No imaged you showed had that. Did that come from the poster? Did that come from Pope or aritst or production team? Did it stop at just the background being added with context or without. how do you reconcile all that?

this thread feels like a conversation where two people are talking past each other and its way off the titled subject

 

[Andreas]

I'd missed that part. So, given it's a photo of a photo that seems to make Robinson's statement about film grain redundant:

The film grain distribution suggests that no negative or print based manipulation of the image has taken place and that the image is a genuine representation of a scene in front of the camera.

So, there's no good reason to assume it's represents what was in front of the actual camera.

I asked Robinson about this specifically:

Email from Andrew Robinson, August 13, 2026:

I looked at this in my 2024 report - We should have two grain patterns overlain on each other - one from the original film and one from the B/W copy but it would be very hard identify this in a resulting print.

The Lindsay print has a fairly course grain present across the entire image however it's not possible to know if this is from the original film or from the copy film.

The film grain across the whole print is not in sharp focus - this blur could have been introduced in four ways:

• the print machine making the original print (at a Chemist or photo lab) was slightly out of focus (highly unlikely as this would have auto focus and the prints would be checked before being supplied)
• the camera making the copy print was slightly out of focus (most likely - fairly easy to do on a copy stand when quickly making a copy)
• the camera making the copy print was moved during copying (possible however unlikely as the grain blur isn't movement blur - its focus blur)
• the enlarger making the copy print was out of focus (unlikely as this was a mini-printer which again would have had auto focus)).

And regarding the possibility of a cut-and paste hoax, he answered in the same email:

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 and not be relieved in the poster sized enlargements so I don't think the production of the Lindsay print has much relevance here - If the UFO is a cut and paste it would need to be convincing in the originals.

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.

I would imagine that if you were studying the original negatives (rather than the Lindsay copy print) you would be able to see evidence of this especially when the negative is enlarged to poster size.

In other words, a cut-and-paste hoax wouldn't necessarily be detectable in Lindsay's crap-quality print. But Robinson argues that the MoD should have detected traces of such a hoax when examining the original negatives back in 1990. The problem is that we simply don't know how much effort was put into the investigation.

Personally, I don't fully rule out some old-school cut-and-paste job, because I really don't think the MoD gave a rat's ass about hoax UFO photos or cared much about debunking them. After determining that the photos had no significance for national security, they probably just sent them back to the Daily Record with a polite "thanks, but no thanks."

 

[John J.]

What? I definitely can't see a "line" in Lindsay's copy of the photo.

Ah, good point. I was using an inferior copy.

 

[jon_eir]

It's up to each and every one of us to decide whether the CGI recreation was mainly based on the VU-foils or the actual photos. But to me, the answer seems quite obvious.

if its obvious state it? if you think its based of the actual photos address the lack of background/ foreground and fence line with supporting evidence? maybe could say you think Pope created the fore/background from false memories of the the poster and use that for his input. And that would be the larger point Im getting at-there is mountainous amounts of speculation going on here for a thread on the actual recovered photo

I think they didn't include the foreground trees and fence in the mock up photo because there are none on the path they walked for that photo (you'd have to scale a deer fence in order to get overhanging foliage in the shot. At Calvine there are basically two hills to walk to get up high, they chose the wide gravel one - the easier of the two. The other leading up to An Teampan is more winding (time consuming)

who is they? what path did they walk? if your talking about Pope, graphic artist and whoever else may have been involved in the "mock-up" do we know they even took a photo and used that in the recreation. Maybe some of that is in the channel 5 Doc but I havent seen any supporting evidence for that here?

 

[Andreas]

Nick pope "claimed" to have saw it there, he "claimed" there was a poster and he "may" have had input into the recreation. Pope refused to comment on whether the photo this thread is about he had actually seen. It may be a valid conversation in it its own right but is this thread the place to have it- Thread title is "Original Calvine UFO Photo"

You're making quite a lot of claims without providing any sources. I've spoken to Pope about this, and it's quite obvious that he never claimed to have seen Lindsay's low-quality repro photo. I don't think anyone except Lindsay himself had ever seen it before Clarke managed to dig it up. But Pope obviously claimed to have seen photographs made from the original negatives while working at Sec(AS)2a. Pope also often spoke about helping to create the CGI reconstruction based on his own recollections and the declassified material.

And regarding the discussion about the CGI recreation - of course it's relevant since it's closely linked to the photograph in question.

You shouldn't spread claims that only create confusion and don't contribute anything meaningful to the discussion.

 

[jon_eir]

You're making quite a lot of claims without providing any sources. I've spoken to Pope about this, and it's quite obvious that he never claimed to have seen Lindsay's low-quality repro photo. I don't think anyone except Lindsay himself had ever seen it before Clarke managed to dig it up. But Pope obviously claimed to have seen photographs made from the original negatives while working at Sec(AS)2a. Pope also often spoke about helping to create the CGI reconstruction based on his own recollections and the declassified material.

And regarding the discussion about the CGI recreation - of course it's relevant since it's closely linked to the photograph in question.

You shouldn't spread claims that only create confusion and don't contribute anything meaningful to the discussion.

i didnt make those claims im paraphrasing the quote above it. which was exactly my point.
if you now saw say he didnt see it how is the mock up closely linked to the photograph in questions?

Do you have a soucre for nick saying he didnt see it because i quoted his website where its states he has never publicly commented on it

https://nickpope.net/wpte19/the-calvine-ufo/?.com

Neither the MoD nor Nick Pope has commented on the provenance of the Craig Lindsay image, and Nick Pope has neither confirmed nor denied that it's one of the originals that he had access to at the MoD

 

[Giddierone]

who is they? what path did they walk? if your talking about Pope, graphic artist and whoever else may have been involved in the "mock-up" do we know they even took a photo and used that in the recreation. Maybe some of that is in the channel 5 Doc but I havent seen any supporting evidence for that here?

Whoever was given the job to create the mock up. I'm assuming they visited Calvine for the background shot used in it.

 

[John J.]

It may be a valid conversation in it its own right but is this thread the place to have it- Thread title is "Original Calvine UFO Photo"

-I put that to you earlier with the supporting quotes. "I'm asking what are the grounds for speculating about the artist recreation given the title of this thread

I appreciate that raising the possibility that the Channel 5 mock-up might be evidence that Nick Pope had indeed seen the original photo (or at least a copy of one of the original photos) is not the main point of this thread, but there have been minor divergences before (for better or worse).
If Mick or one of the moderators want to split off the thread, that's their decision which I would respect. Or you could start a new thread, but personally I don't see the point.

I am now less convinced in my theory that the recreation clearly shows indications that Nick Pope had seen the original photo or something similar, largely due to the well-argued points made by @Andreas, and Mendel. I still have some thoughts about it, though I doubt I'll be pursuing the matter! But I will almost certainly put forward incorrect or shaky theories in the future. It's possible others might too.

if you now saw say he didnt see it...

I think Andreas is saying Pope didn't claim to have seen Craig Lindsay's photo that was sent to him by The Daily Record. It's very unlikely that he did, as that copy remained in Craig Lindsay's possession.
Technically, I guess you're right that that copy of one of the original photos is the subject of the thread.
But Nick Pope might have been in a position to have seen the original negatives/ photos, or "in-house" reproductions of them (e.g. the claimed poster). Discussion of any information there might be about the originals has happened on this thread before, and I think is in the spirit of the thread.

 

[Andreas]

its obvious state it? if you think its based of the actual photos address the lack of background/ foreground and fence line with supporting evidence?

I think it's mainly made from the VU-foils.

 

[Andreas]

Technically, I guess you're right that that copy of one of the original photos is the subject of the thread.
But Nick Pope might have been in a position to have seen the original negatives/ photos, or "in-house" reproductions of them (e.g. the claimed poster). Discussion of any information there might be about the originals has happened on this thread before, and I think is in the spirit of the thread.

Yeah, I mean, it's essential to discuss the originals, and the VU-foils & CGI recreation, when determining whether Lindsay's copy is a reproduction of one of the alleged six original frames. I think it's highly relevant for the thread.

 

[Giddierone]

Does anyone have the relevent clip from Channel 5's "Alien Cover-Up" the sixth episode of the 2015 documentary series Conspiracy?

 

[jon_eir]

@John J. @Giddierone I think ill just bow out of this one. I'm unclear of what posters stances are on the recreation at this point. And how assumptions/speculations on it relate to the uncovered photo this thread was about.

I asked for clarifications on those points which I don't think were addressed directional and its also on posters to keep threads on point imo. Maybe I should have been more forthright when I first addressed its relevance here. It seems like a topic/issue that should have been discussed in its own right

 

[John J.]

I think ill just bow out of this one.

Don't feel obliged to bow out.
People are allowed to disagree and can make mistakes (er, I might have about the Channel 5 recreation. But don't tell anyone, I don't think anyone noticed).

I asked for clarifications on those points which I don't think were addressed...

It's fine to ask for clarifications, but perhaps remember no-ones obliged to answer. Demanding answers/ clarifications might not go down well (repeating them within a few hours, using bold characters).
IIRC you asked me something about the landscape in the Channel 5 mock-up, I thought @NorCal Dave and @Giddierone gave reasonable responses.
I was aware of the issue (oops, an "a" in the wrong place),

The landscape is not visible in the Vu-Foils, and the mock-up's visibly hilly landscape without nearby a fence does not really match the photo.

 

[NorCal Dave]

Email from Andrew Robinson, August 13, 2026:

I find it at least confusing, that the report he authored for Clarke, which sent Clarke off looking for a secret US aircraft, says something different. I would argue, it was Robinson's original report that almost completely ruled out a hoax due the "fine grain" of the photo, that got Clarke on the secret aircraft trail. They didn't consider a hoax a real possibility and weren't thinking real UFO, so secret aircraft. He went so far as to suggest it was created with Ilford X-P1, a boutique B&W film:

Conclusion - It is my considered opinion that the film used was Ilford XP-1 processed using C41 chemistry. This is consistent with the claimed heritage of the print. The choice of this fairly specialist film by the photographer should also be considered as it suggests an interest in, and knowledge of photography.

The grain is also consistent with that of Ilford's XP films which were well known for their fine grain properties. The grain is not sufficiently sharp enough due to the quality (sharpness) of the printing to allow more detailed analysis of grain shape which might help confirm the film typе.

Conclusion - The film grain is consistent with the film identified (XP-1) and suggests that no negative or print based manipulation of the image has taken place and that the image is a genuine representation of a scene in front of the cameraа.

Andrew Robinson photo analysis

This was walked back in a YouTube video a bit later (my bold):

"Originally I thought [XP1] might be a likely choice because it was a color print. XP1 you're processing colour chemistry and then you would print it onto colour paper. It was introduced in the 1980s by Ilford and it became quite popular in the 90s because a lot of labs didn't process black and white film anymore, so this is a way of shooting black and white imagery and getting it processed in a high street lab. However, when I've done a closer analysis of the grain [it] looks much more like the grain structure of a traditional black and white film rather than the grain structure of XP1 or XP2, which is a much finer and different kind of grain. So it's looking more like a traditional film."

the Disclosure Team Q&A video at 10.52 mins Andrew Robinson

But he was still maintaining the original photo was created with B&W film stock. Which is sorta true, as this is a B&W copy of the likely color original. Clarke and Robinson had the MoD notes that clearly state, twice, the originals were color. It seems the idea of this being a copy of some kind was never considered. If the original report had something like what is in your email correspondence, I wonder if this whole chase for a secret aircraft would have gotten off the ground:

I looked at this in my 2024 report - We should have two grain patterns overlain on each other - one from the original film and one from the B/W copy but it would be very hard identify this in a resulting print.

The Lindsay print has a fairly course grain present across the entire image however it's not possible to know if this is from the original film or from the copy film.

 

[Andreas]

I find it at least confusing, that the report he authored for Clarke, which sent Clarke off looking for a secret US aircraft, says something different.

Yes, this is indeed confusing. I have had a lot of discussions with Robinson about the case, and to be honest, I simply don't get it. My conclusion is that central parts of his original photo analysis no longer stand. And I agree—it's unfortunate that it led some people on a wild-goose chase for mysterious black projects instead of the more obvious explanations. There's always a lot of talk about large craft in the sky, but at the same time, he concludes on Substack:

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

The photograph may well be a hoax, and indeed both Dr David Clarke and I believe that, based on the evidence currently available, this is the most likely explanation…