The Calvine UFO Sighting (Scotland; August 1990)

[DrPaulLee]

Maybe, after "A Visit", everyone's too frightened to say anything!

 

[Paul_Exeter]

Maybe, after "A Visit", everyone's too frightened to say anything!

I do feel that would have worked for a while but eventually tongues would wag in such a small community and we would have had a snippet, also after 32 years some of those staff will have been on their 'deathbeds' and with nothing to lose. We also have the small matter of the former Press Officer waving a print of an original photo around and he is only seemingly worried about the Data Protection Act and not a "A visit". I reckon that if you have kept quiet for 32 years and suddenly there's an RAF chap actually holding one of the photos you might be a bit pissed off and decide it's time to tell all

 

[Paul_Exeter]

Listening to the Lindsay interview again.

From my own experience of working in country house hotels I can say that the owners and management didn't appreciate personal staff calls coming though the main hotel number. In the 1980s/90s the hotel switchboard was by far the main source of enquiries and bookings. For example, at one 4-star hotel I worked in there was an "overflow" phone in reception that would ring if the bookings team were all busy. We managers had to jump up and answer it within three rings and if we took too long and it was one of the owners you would get an ear-bashing.

That is how seriously hotels took the phone lines and anyone ringing up asking for a member of staff would at best have been given the staff number, usually a payphone in the accommodation block or staffroom. I find it odd that the receptionist would have the time and patience to leave his/her desk and go off and find the dishwasher. At the most they would have put him through to the kitchen phone or staff phone. But that's not what Lindsay says, in fact he states the receptionist relied "yes he is [here] I'll get him" or words to that effect. From my experience iI find that unlikely in a hotel of that size and stature

If it were a pub, inn or small hotel then yes, the call might have come through to the bar and the bar person would have shouted through to the kitchen. So yeah, Lindsay seems certain but it wasn't common practice, especially for a seasonal dishwasher.

 

[Paul_Exeter]

Contd:

Have just been researching the fascinating history of the Atholl Palace Hotel, it is a huge collection of buildings and even has its own museum of itself...! It seems it have fallen on hard times by the 1970s as it was sold three times in that decade alone and again in 1996. Since 1996 and another change of ownership its fortunes have been revitalised and it is now part of an exclusive group of hotels.

The main building has 106 bedrooms. Country house hotels usually accommodate the staff in a separate building, I have known converted stables to be used, as this minimises the risk of disturbance to guests. The hotel offers staff accommodation today and these two witnesses are referred to as part of the 'holiday staff', so a strong possibly they were live-in from outside of the area, especially given the number of hotels in and around Pitlochry.

When Lindsay rang the number it was answered with the name of the establishment. He asked witness X was available and received an immediate answer of "Yes" and that the employee would go and get him. How did that employee answering the phone know a seasonal dishwasher was both working and that they were on duty? It seems unlikely unless this was a popular member of the team, but then why can't anyone remember him..? Witness X now comes to the phone and speaks to Lindsay on the phone. Presumably Witness X is now in reception but hotels don't like kitchen staff being seen 'front of house' unless they are in clean whites and dishwasher just wear t-shirts and aprons at best.

Perhaps it was the kitchen number? Unlikely, as it would have been answered by a gruff chef with little more than 'kitchen" and then Lindsay would have heard Witness X being called over and probably some blue language, too.

tl;dr: It is unlikely that the receptionist of a large hotel still in the height of the tourist season would know that a seasonal dish washer was on duty, never mind say 'yes, he's here' and then go and get him. Hotels have strict rules for employees and taking personal calls at work is a no-no. If the witness was off-duty then in my opinion the call would have been transferred or he wouldn't have answered so quickly. If Lindsay said he was from the RAF then it would have gone round the hotel staff like wildfire, but no-one remembers a thing, including the former receptionist.

 

[DrPaulLee]

Oh I don't know ... being forced to sign The Official Secrets Act is enough to put the fear of God into many people

 

[Paul_Exeter]

By the way, there is a pub called 'The Atholl Arms' just eight minutes from the Daily Record building in Glasgow.....

Dr Paul, I find it more unlikely that a big hotel receptionist would take a personal call for a seasonal dishwasher, know he was at work and then go and get him to take the call than if all the hotel staff were made to sign The Official Secrets Act

 

[DrPaulLee]

I know, I was being frivolous (although I can imagine one or two people being told to sign it). As for the phone call, who's to say the manager or front of house staff didn't briefly conduit a register, or personally knew the staff member concerned and had seen him that day, for whatever reason?

 

[Paul_Exeter]

I know, I was being frivolous (although I can imagine one or two people being told to sign it). As for the phone call, who's to say the manager or front of house staff didn't briefly conduit a register, or personally knew the staff member concerned and had seen him that day, for whatever reason?

If it was senior member of the team, perhaps yes, but in pre-internet 1990 a hotel couldn't afford to allow personal calls for the dozens of seasonal staff, they needed their phone lines free to take bookings. At best a manager would have taken a message or transferred the call, but that's not what Lindsay says. The witness was a seasonal dishwasher, he would have been lucky if he was allowed front of house, never mind hanging around reception taking a personal call. Just my opinion but that's how hotels worked in my experience.

 

[Carse]

Contd:

Have just been researching the fascinating history of the Atholl Palace Hotel, it is a huge collection of buildings and even has its own museum of itself...! It seems it have fallen on hard times by the 1970s as it was sold three times in that decade alone and again in 1996. Since 1996 and another change of ownership its fortunes have been revitalised and it is now part of an exclusive group of hotels.

The main building has 106 bedrooms. Country house hotels usually accommodate the staff in a separate building, I have known converted stables to be used, as this minimises the risk of disturbance to guests. The hotel offers staff accommodation today and these two witnesses are referred to as part of the 'holiday staff', so a strong possibly they were live-in from outside of the area, especially given the number of hotels in and around Pitlochry.

I don't have anything to add other than to say I was at a friend's wedding at the Atholl Palace in 2018 and it is a seriously large and impressive bit of Victoriana. I definitely recommend lunch and a look round if you're ever in the area.

 

[BS3]

David Clarke has posted a bit more on James Easton's Facebook group about the witnesses - he notes that he has established they were "chefs" to his satisfaction. Amongst other things, he implies that the reason for their presence up a Scottish mountain at 9pm with a camera "might have something to do with why they were persuaded not to go any further with their Press contacts and to disappear for 32 years" - though obviously cannot say more unless one of them chooses to reveal himself.

 

[Paul_Exeter]

David Clarke has posted a bit more on James Easton's Facebook group about the witnesses - he notes that he has established they were "chefs" to his satisfaction. Amongst other things, he implies that the reason for their presence up a Scottish mountain at 9pm with a camera "might have something to do with why they were persuaded not to go any further with their Press contacts and to disappear for 32 years" - though obviously cannot say more unless one of them chooses to reveal himself.

Hmmm, makes you wonder if the camera was confiscated and something was found (speculation). Perhaps unknown to them was was another witness or witnesses.... Unlikely it if was poaching? Unless maybe they had lots of photos of their ill-gotten gains...

Okay, let's be adult about this: if they were both male and over the age of 16 anything sexual they did has not been a criminal offence since 2001 and the DPP would not be prosecute a case from the past (that is my understanding).

However, an elephant may have just entered the room...

 

[BS3]

Hmmm, makes you wonder if the camera was confiscated and something was found (speculation). Perhaps unknown to them was was another witness or witnesses.... Unlikely it if was poaching? Unless maybe they had lots of photos of their ill-gotten gains...

Okay, let's be adult about this: if they were both male and over the age of 16 anything sexual they did has not been a criminal offence since 2001 and the DPP would not be prosecute a case from the past (that is my understanding).

However, an elephant may have just entered the room...

I have to say my first thought was simply 'poaching', but is that really such a serious matter? (Unless of course the witnesses were about to head off to University or something - a conviction could have blighted their life chances at that exact point).

I suppose one other option is that they were actually photographing something else military without authorisation - I've no idea what, but that would certainly be a serious matter.

 

[BS3]

On reflection, let's say it was August, and let's say you had your university place in the bag and were working in a fun holiday job - indulging in a bit of illegal, off the record 'hunting' on the side.

I imagine that the MoD threatening to tell a) your University b) your Dad and c) the Procurator Fiscal of Scotland might have put the wind up you a bit. Certainly would have scuppered your University place and career plans. English, but working in the huntin' shootin' bit of Perthshire, and possibly with knowledge of shooting and a decent camera - sounds a respectable, middle class sort of profile to me.

 

[Paul_Exeter]

On reflection, let's say it was August, and let's say you had your university place in the bag and were working in a fun holiday job - indulging in a bit of illegal, off the record 'hunting' on the side.

I imagine that the MoD threatening to tell a) your University b) your Dad and c) the Procurator Fiscal of Scotland might have put the wind up you a bit. Certainly would have scuppered your University place and career plans. English, but working in the huntin' shootin' bit of Perthshire, and possibly with knowledge of shooting and a decent camera - sounds a respectable, middle class sort of profile to me.

Perhaps they were selling their ill-gotten bounty to the hotel and possibly without the owners knowing...? Head Chef told to keep quiet or he'll be up in front of the beak, too.

Anyway this means it wasn't a hoax

 

[kesavaross]

I have to say my first thought was simply 'poaching', but is that really such a serious matter? (Unless of course the witnesses were about to head off to University or something - a conviction could have blighted their life chances at that exact point).

I suppose one other option is that they were actually photographing something else military without authorisation - I've no idea what, but that would certainly be a serious matter.

If they were photographing something military from public land then I can't see anything wrong with that.

Also, if they were poaching then maybe the game was for the hotel?

 

[Paul_Exeter]

In the late-80s a chef I worked with was caught stealing whole joints of meat and poultry to barter for alcohol in his local boozer, stuff like this goes on

 

[BS3]

Perhaps they were selling their ill-gotten bounty to the hotel and possibly without the owners knowing...? Head Chef told to keep quiet or he'll be up in front of the beak, too.

Anyway this means it wasn't a hoax

This is possible too, and might be part of the reason why there was little memory of the witnesses among staff.

 

[Paul_Exeter]

This is possible too, and might be part of the reason why there was little memory of the witnesses among staff.

They were probably deeply embarrassed, consigned it all to the bin of history and didn't appreciate Clarke showing up...

 

[BS3]

I've just had a quick look on Metabunk and see this has come up there (think we have some common membership).

the real question is if you are poaching, why would you take photographic evidence of your crime? please

Clearly these people don't know poachers or 'sport' shooters. Bring down a big stag, of course you'll take a photo (particularly if the film can easily be processed at home or some anonymous corner lab). Good bragging rights when you get back home among the right 'set' etc. A gap year memory. This is an easy story to understand.

 

[Paul_Exeter]

I've just had a quick look on Metabunk and see this has come up there (think we have some common membership).



Clearly these people don't know poachers or 'sport' shooters. Bring down a big stag, of course you'll take a photo (particularly if the film can easily be processed at home or some anonymous corner lab). Good bragging rights when you get back home among the right 'set' etc. A gap year memory. This is an easy story to understand.

To bring down a deer you need a rifle, they might have borrowed one they weren’t licensed for, hence the deep doo-doo when they got rumbled

 

[BS3]

Out of interest, here are the current penalties applying in Scotland (not sure what acts were in force in 1990)

The Deer (Scotland) Act 1996: In relation to poaching, organised offences involving 2 or more persons attract higher penalties than poaching by individuals. So where an individual kills a deer in contravention of the provisions, the maximum penalties are a fine of Level 4 on the Standard Scale (£2,500) per deer and/or up to 3 months imprisonment. However, in cases of organised poaching the maximum fine on summary conviction is the statutory maximum (£10,000) per deer and conviction on indictment is possible with a potentially unlimited fine and/or up to 2 years imprisonment being provided for.

That's without any penalties for carrying a firearm to commit an indictable offence, for unlicensed possession, etc

 

[Paul_Exeter]

Out of interest, here are the current penalties applying in Scotland (not sure what acts were in force in 1990)



That's without any penalties for carrying a firearm to commit an indictable offence, for unlicensed possession, etc

It’s a cracking Midsomer Murders plot: two lads claim they have photographed a UFO and Barnaby uncovers a poaching ring

Thing is, what is that in the photo? It seems to have been significant enough for someone to look very closely at our witnesses….

Incidentally, do we know it was two males or the male who was interviewed and a female cohort…?

 

[BS3]

It’s a cracking Midsomer Murders plot: two lads claim they have photographed a UFO and Barnaby uncovers a poaching ring

Thing is, what is that in the photo? It seems to have been significant enough for someone to look very closely at our witnesses….

In all honesty "someone" probably didn't know for sure, but was soiling themselves at the thought that a newspaper might be about to leak evidence of a top secret project of our American friends.

If you think about it, it's highly unlikely that such a project would actually be tested anywhere where it could easily be seen. But I guess the person tasked with ensuring the story went nowhere didn't have time to speculate about these details.

 

[eburacum]

If it is a genuine 'black project' the Government would hardly identify it in the materials released under FOI. Clearly Clarke now thinks the evidence tends towards that interpretation.

Clarke is a good researcher, but his 'preferred options' sometimes tend towards the 'secret conspiracy' pole. Of all the options, that seems the least likely. Aurora seems to be a myth, especially thirty-two years later..

I gravitate towards 'elusive aliens' or 'complete hoax'. Less likely possibilities are 'misinterpreted natural phenomenon' or 'extradimensional intruders'; that last option is bandied about a lot at the minute, but I think there is very little chance of it being correct.

 

[BS3]

It seems very unlikely for reasons I've mentioned earlier, but there is clearly something about the narrative that suggests a black project to Clarke - I don't know, but he has access to information I don't (and much more experience of work with official documents and sources) so will reserve judgement. I still feel a hoax that got a bit out of hand is most likely, but we'll see.

I suppose his apparent focus on the conspiratorial aspects of the phenomenon largely comes from the fact that he's concentrated on the British government response to UFOs - the FOIA work, Out of the Shadows, etc. Unlike many sighting reports themselves, it's an area where productive research can still be done.

 

[eburacum]

Incidentally, do we know it was two males or the male who was interviewed and a female cohort…?

Since Lindsay only spoke to one of them, the other one might not even have been real.

 

[EnolaGaia]

Although I like the reflection hypothesis in terms of explaining the image / optics, there are problems with it in terms of the alleged story and attempts to pin down the location.

I didn't see any place in the Clarke video that offered or suggested a pond in close proximity to a fence row. This and the completely obscured horizon leave me less than convinced Clarke (etc.) found the actual site where the photograph was taken.

The reflection hypothesis implies the only thing in the sky at the time was a jet circling around - conveniently positioned to be reflected in the pond (huge puddle; whatever) such that its reflection appeared to be circling a semi-submerged object. The hypothesis removes the mystery object from the sky. As such, what was it the jet was really circling?

The only basis for believing the jet was circling at all comes from hearsay, and it can never be proven without reviewing the other 5 alleged photos.

Given the one allegedly authentic photo, I have a hard time believing a jet (including a Harrier in level / forward flight mode) could circle a point or object so tightly as to remain in frame during a complete circuit. A Harrier could circle in such a tight pattern if slowed down and using its VTOL capabilities, but in that mode it wouldn't / couldn't be banked as far as indicated in the one photo we've seen.

 

[EnolaGaia]

Another Calvine nugget has surfaced on Twitter:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1558773564244910080

Apparently this is the witness statement taken by the RAF Press Officer Lindsay. ...

The redacted typewritten document is the first hard evidence (I've seen or recall .. ) confirming the MOD identified the aircraft in the photo as definitely being a Harrier.

 

[BS3]

The best I can glean from what Clarke has written, and bear in mind this is informed either by what people have remembered at several years' remove or by very incomplete contemporary documentation, is that

- in the full series of images the object was stationary but the jet moved

- a second jet was discerned in at least one image, although less clear than the 'main' aircraft

The redacted typewritten document is the first hard evidence (I've seen or recall .. ) confirming the MOD identified the aircraft in the photo as definitely being a Harrier.

On Clarke's website it notes that this was referenced in the papers released under FOIA, specifically in:

papers generated by the Sec(AS) desk officer Owen Hartop refer to analysis of the negatives by a specialist branch. This identified a Harrier and a ‘barely visible second aircraft, again probably a Harrier’ alongside the large diamond-shaped UFO in the images.

The 'specialist branch' would be JARIC, the RAF's own photo analysis unit.

 

[maximus otter]

To bring down a deer you need a rifle, they might have borrowed one they weren’t licensed for, hence the deep doo-doo when they got rumbled

It’s both practically and legally possible to kill deer with shotguns - it’s called “buckshot” for a reason - though in the overwhelmingly vast majority of cases in the UK it’s done with rifles. The circumstances under which it can be done legally, however, are very limited.

The Scottish law surrounding the legal use of shotguns to kill deer is convoluted, but think “landowner protecting crops/use slugs or buckshot” and you won’t be far off:

s.26 Deer (Scotland) Act 1996

All of the above is, of course, only academic if the “teenage chefs” were poaching…

maximus otter​