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 allMaybe, after "A Visit", everyone's too frightened to say anything!
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.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?
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.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.
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...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...
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.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.
If they were photographing something military from public land then I can't see anything wrong with that.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.
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
They were probably deeply embarrassed, consigned it all to the bin of history and didn't appreciate Clarke showing up...This is possible too, and might be part of the reason why there was little memory of the witnesses among staff.
the real question is if you are poaching, why would you take photographic evidence of your crime? please
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 rumbledI'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.
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.
It’s a cracking Midsomer Murders plot: two lads claim they have photographed a UFO and Barnaby uncovers a poaching ringOut 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….
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..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.
Since Lindsay only spoke to one of them, the other one might not even have been real.Incidentally, do we know it was two males or the male who was interviewed and a female cohort…?
Another Calvine nugget has surfaced on Twitter:
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.
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.
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