• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

The Calvine UFO Sighting (Scotland; August 1990)

Posts about the Calvine incident (and evidence) scattered across multiple places in the forums have now been consolidated into this single thread.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BS3
So how much do we know about the weather conditions on that day? It was August but in the present-day location shot in the Mailonline there is a huge amount of background detail and yet at 9pm-ish on that August evening there was none, which suggests to met overcast weather at a time when th3 sun was about to set, so it would have been gloomy

Other than that we know know it was two young chefs from a hotel at Pitlochry, so someone will remember these guys or they might now come forward themselves. I’m curious about the use of black and white film in 1990 and that the lab felt this was the work of a serious photographer.
 
Last edited:
Paul_Exeter said:
So how much do we know about the weather conditions on that day?
Click to expand...

01-Calvine-Fortean.jpg


02-Calvine-Fortean.jpg


03-Calvine-Fortean.jpg


04-Calvine-Fortean.jpg


https://digital.nmla.metoffice.gov.uk/IO_988a2914-1297-4653-94d8-d38337883b91/

maximus otter
 
maximus otter said:
OK, Mr. Pope: Let’s see the Calvine photos.

The UFO photos that were so secret that you had a blown-up poster of one of them on your office wall for several years, for passers-by and the tea lady to look at.

maximus otter
Click to expand...
Who are/were the chefs?
 
Problem is, is that what we are seeing there, (if the photograph was an actual real one) is a picture displayed on our PC (or device), which is displayed on a website for a newspaper, which is a digitised/scanned version of the 'original'.
Now let's also add in the possibility that the 'original' was some sort of faked item, possibly a creation made of a different image actually cut out and pasted onto a picture of a single jet flying past, and then photographed again, etc.

What we have is many opportunities for deception, image manipulation, aberrations and inconsistencies within the transfer of images from one source to another etc etc etc.

I would remain unconvinced until supporting evidence of original negatives could be examined. And even then, those negatives could have been produced by some trickster.
 
...plus if the vessel exists and is of earthly origin, then the owner is doing a sh1t job on 'world peace'.
 
Coal said:
...plus if the vessel exists and is of earthly origin, then the owner is doing a sh1t job on 'world peace'.
Click to expand...
Yep, you'd think that the tech would actually be used for something other than scaring a few people.
 
Judging by the expiry date of the official embargo on these photos (2076), one or both of these 'chefs' was 16 years old at the time. The photo(s) would have been released on their 100th birthday. They'll be about 46 years old, now.
 
Reading Clarke's articles on the photo on his website, there seems to be an underlying inference that the photo itself might be a hoax, but that the British intelligence community genuinely thought for a while that it might be a US black project, so - dunno.
 
Last edited:
I might have been more inclined to think the 'black project' theory was correct if it wasn't for the story that went with the photo,which claims the witnesses saw the object hovering and then shooting straight up. If they'd said it was moving like a plane, then things would be different
 
I6 year-old kids might be more inclined to fake a photo for giggles, but that is not a proof either way, unfortunately.
 
I think the timing of the photo (immediately before the invasion of Kuwait and subsequent war with Iraq) along with early 90s rumours about 'something' being flown out of Scottish airbases (recorded by Clarke) might be the key to this - either as context for the sighting or as context for a hoax. This wasn't long after reporting of the Belgian 'flap' either.

We really need @Comfortably Numb's thoughts on this...
 
Paul_Exeter said:
So how much do we know about the weather conditions on that day? It was August but in the present-day location shot in the Mailonline there is a huge amount of background detail and yet at 9pm-ish on that August evening there was none, which suggests to met overcast weather at a time when th3 sun was about to set, so it would have been gloomy

Other than that we know know it was two young chefs from a hotel at Pitlochry, so someone will remember these guys or they might now come forward themselves. I’m curious about the use of black and white film in 1990 and that the lab felt this was the work of a serious photographer.
Click to expand...

Thinking back as someone who was about the same age as the witnesses at the time and was interested in 'proper' photography, I'd say that on the one hand you could get Ilford FP4 or whatever in any Boots - it wasn't specialist. However the fact was that by this point nearly everyone wanted colour photographs (rather than transparencies or B&W) so to be going around with B&W loaded in your camera suggests you were interested in serious photography.

It was also the case that even an entry level SLR was beyond the means of most teenagers unless you got an eastern bloc Zenit or Praktica - easy to forget in these days of high-level consumer cameras. So having a 'proper' camera took commitment.
 
BS3 said:
Thinking back as someone who was about the same age as the witnesses at the time and was interested in 'proper' photography, I'd say that on the one hand you could get Ilford FP4 or whatever in any Boots - it wasn't specialist. However the fact was that by this point nearly everyone wanted colour photographs (rather than transparencies or B&W) so to be going around with B&W loaded in your camera suggests you were interested in serious photography.

It was also the case that even an entry level SLR was beyond the means of most teenagers unless you got an eastern bloc Zenit or Praktica - easy to forget in these days of high-level consumer cameras. So having a 'proper' camera took commitment.
Click to expand...

Dr. Clarke says “slides”.

Where is the quality of the camera mentioned?

maximus otter
 
maximus otter said:
Dr. Clarke says “slides”.

Where is the quality of the camera mentioned?

maximus otter
Click to expand...

It's in the photo analysis linked upthread somewhere I think. If it's a C-41 negative then by definition not a 'slide' or transparency.

The report suggests Ilford XP2, which is a B&W film that can be processed in C41 (colour) chemistry - usually for convenience, as even in 1990 not all labs did the 'traditional' B&W process. This to me perhaps implies that maybe the photographer was expecting to get the photos processed very quickly, eg at a local one hour place. Again there is something about the latter which seems to point at a hoax in some way. It would have been interesting to know where the photos came on the roll.
 
Last edited:
BS3 said:
I might have been more inclined to think the 'black project' theory was correct if it wasn't for the story that went with the photo,which claims the witnesses saw the object hovering and then shooting straight up. If they'd said it was moving like a plane, then things would be different
Click to expand...
This 'straight up' movement has been debated on here before and some have concluded that it means they likely lost sight of the object (perhaps tracking the Harrier/s in this instance) and concluded it could only have gone straight up, but there is no evidence for that in this case. However, from the evidence it was an overcast day with low cloud cover so it wouldn't have had far to go.

I was born in rural West Sussex and every time I go back there seem to be more and more planes overhead head to and from Gatwick (well prior to Covid). Sometimes when you look up these planes barely seem to be moving but physics dictates they are moving at well over 100mph and it is simply all down to the angle of the observer and the plane. We don't have the other three photos but this might have some relevance in this case and explain the subsequent acceleration.
 
eburacum said:
Here's David Clarke on the subject, who is slightly more open-minded on the case than I am.
https://drdavidclarke.co.uk/2018/06/16/black-projects-ufos-and-the-mysterious-mo-d-notice/
Click to expand...
That said, we shouldn't lose sight of the fact the photo shows a Harrier jet that the MoD adamantly denied was flying (link above), which to my mind suggests three possible scenarios:
  1. The photo wasn't taken on the day they claimed it was
  2. It is a genuine UFO and the MoD panicked
  3. It is a US Black project and the MoD panicked
The first scenario includes a possible hoax, but then why silence the media (Daily Record) as someone clearly did...?
 
Paul_Exeter said:
That said, we shouldn't lose sight of the fact the photo shows a Harrier jet that the MoD adamantly denied was flying (link above), which to my mind suggests three possible scenarios:
  1. The photo wasn't taken on the day they claimed it was
  2. It is a genuine UFO and the MoD panicked
  3. It is a US Black project and the MoD panicked
The first scenario includes a possible hoax, but then why silence the media (Daily Record) as someone clearly did...?
Click to expand...

The other option is that it's a hoax, but the MoD thought it might be a US black project and panicked. To me this ticks most boxes.
 
BS3 said:
The other option is that it's a hoax, but the MoD thought it might be a US black project and panicked. To me this ticks most boxes.
Click to expand...
My only reservation is that other witnesses may have come forward to report clear sighting of the Harrier/s* or heaven forbid anotherr photograph, which then leaves egg-on face-for all at the MoD, so why not just say "yes, we had that/those aircraft flying but they reported nothing unusual"...?

*Sure I have read there was a second Harrier
 
  • Like
Reactions: BS3
eburacum said:
Judging by the expiry date of the official embargo on these photos (2076), one or both of these 'chefs' was 16 years old at the time. The photo(s) would have been released on their 100th birthday. They'll be about 46 years old, now.
Click to expand...
So who are these chefs? Where are they now?
 
Paul_Exeter said:
*Sure I have read there was a second Harrier
Click to expand...
I can only imagine that this plane can be seen in a different photo. I would really like to see these other photos (five of them, apparently) so that the shape and disposition of the unknown object can be compared to this one.

Incidentally, here is the 'reconstruction' of the Calvine photo that Nick Pope helped to make; there are several noticable errors.
5d0186232500004e12dfa62e.jpeg
 
Paul_Exeter said:
My only reservation is that other witnesses may have come forward to report clear sighting of the Harrier/s* or heaven forbid anotherr photograph, which then leaves egg-on face-for all at the MoD, so why not just say "yes, we had that/those aircraft flying but they reported nothing unusual"...?

*Sure I have read there was a second Harrier
Click to expand...

There were no Harriers at RAF sites in Scotland at the time, as per Clarke:

Research by Graeme Rendall and others have established there were no Harriers based in mainland Scotland at the time
Click to expand...

So - this suggests either something wrong with the photo, or as Clarke notes we might have a USMC AV-8. Either way, the MoD could not simply use the excuse of their aircraft, plus the latter might imply that it could have been a US thing that they simply weren't briefed about because they didn't need to know.

It appears from Clarke's articles that at least some US sources were interested in finding out if it was a British project they hadn't been told about! Again, I think a clever hoax could well have produced this response.
 
My (very tentative) opinion is that this photo was faked using a nearby object, which explains why it is in-focus when everything else is out of focus.

Perhaps it was suspended on a string (no sign of any string, of course), or stuck on a large sheet of glass (difficult to carry a large sheet of glass around in the Cairngorms, assuming that is where it was taken).
 
One thing I was thinking about is: why B&W? Could it have been that the actual colour of the 'object' would have made the hoax obvious?
 
eburacum said:
My (very tentative) opinion is that this photo was faked using a nearby object, which explains why it is in-focus when everything else is out of focus.

Perhaps it was suspended on a string (no sign of any string, of course), or stuck on a large sheet of glass (difficult to carry a large sheet of glass around in the Cairngorms, assuming that is where it was taken).
Click to expand...

There's the possibility of fine fishing line; this might be very hard to resolve against the sky.
 
eburacum said:
I can only imagine that this plane can be seen in a different photo. I would really like to see these other photos (five of them, apparently) so that the shape and disposition of the unknown object can be compared to this one.

Incidentally, here is the 'reconstruction' of the Calvine photo that Nick Pope helped to make; there are several noticable errors.
5d0186232500004e12dfa62e.jpeg
Click to expand...
I'm thinking that that may be an experimental stealth airship.
But I am just guessing.
 
Although the Cairngorms have a small population, they are far from deserted; this would not be a very good place to test a craft that is supposed to be a secret. Especially since the craft, if it existed, would need to be kept secret for the next thirty years.

This also raises the question of why no-one else in Scotland saw this object in 1992.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top