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

The Calvine UFO Sighting (Scotland; August 1990)

BS3 said:
You can do C-41 (colour) at home (or indeed E6 for slide film!) but generally most people still doing home developing were doing traditional B&W, where there's a long tradition of home developing and printing. The logic of choosing a B&W film to be developed in C-41 is that it would be the process run by any high street commercial lab so was easily accessible and quick.

I find the poaching thing more believable than the 'nude pictures' thing to be honest. I see that the photo analysis gets ever more convoluted, with it now being suggested that the plane is in fact a man and dog in a boat.
Click to expand...
For many years I taught photography courses in and round Pitlochry, including the year the photograph was taken. At the time there was a branch of John Menzie's in Pitlochry which had a one hour developing and printing service, this was the standard C41 which would be used for processing Ilford XP2. The other places that offered d and p were chemist shops that would send the film away and get it back a couple of days later. Fairly easy to develop XP2 at home but if you were doing that you would print it on b and w paper not the colour stock this image was processed on.
XP2 was not the sort of film to be bought by your average holiday snapper, more expensive than a roll of colour negative film, and most people wanted colour pics of their holidays. For someone interested in photography it has advantages, the high street processing, the arty feel of b and w, and a large exposure latitude - its nominal sensitivity was ISO 400 but on the same roll it could be exposed at anything between 50 to 800 and still produce useable photos.
 
gordonrutter said:
For many years I taught photography courses in and round Pitlochry, including the year the photograph was taken. At the time there was a branch of John Menzie's in Pitlochry which had a one hour developing and printing service, this was the standard C41 which would be used for processing Ilford XP2. The other places that offered d and p were chemist shops that would send the film away and get it back a couple of days later. Fairly easy to develop XP2 at home but if you were doing that you would print it on b and w paper not the colour stock this image was processed on.
XP2 was not the sort of film to be bought by your average holiday snapper, more expensive than a roll of colour negative film, and most people wanted colour pics of their holidays. For someone interested in photography it has advantages, the high street processing, the arty feel of b and w, and a large exposure latitude - its nominal sensitivity was ISO 400 but on the same roll it could be exposed at anything between 50 to 800 and still produce useable photos.
Click to expand...
So someone working at John Menzies would have processed the photos and thus seen all the images...?
 
Paul_Exeter said:
So someone working at John Menzies would have processed the photos and thus seen all the images...?
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. The machine is basically automatic and whilst you can stand at the end and watch the prints come off you would normally set it going and go away and do other things an then come back later and there would be a nice stack of prints which you would scoop up and put in the packet along with the negatives. So yes they could have but it is not necessary for the use of the machine.
 
Bah. This was thirty years ago. We would have seen evidence of this 'black project' by now. Both the UK and the US were mystified by these photos, and blamed each other.

As much as I respect his investigative work, Clarke is simply wrong.
 
eburacum said:
Bah. This was thirty years ago. We would have seen evidence of this 'black project' by now. Both the UK and the US were mystified by these photos, and blamed each other.

As much as I respect his investigative work, Clarke is simply wrong.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying this is correct, I'm saying the evidence appears strengthened (given my own thoughts are that it was likely a hoax). The writer of the photo analysis has, for example, produced their rationale for stating it's likely a large object in the middle distance, not a small object near the camera. It also appears that the comments by some MoD sources that the image was assumed to be a "spoof" are not necessarily based on the JARIC conclusions.

Another party involved with the photographs has come toward and added a number of other points known to them (including the model of camera used). They have also claimed that the object was clearer on the negatives but that the printing / enlargement process seen on the extant print has lost some detail - not sure what to make of this.

As to whether we'd see any evidence of a black project thirty years later - I agree this is a major point, but is also predicated on the project actually being successful.
 
If we do ever hear from the witnesses it would be extremely useful to clarify it they actually saw the object ascend vertically yet noiselessly or if they were distracted - perhaps by the planes - looked back to see it had gone and made that assumption (this has been suggested elsewhere on this forum with other cases where the UFO in question defied gravity).

Te ability to hover almost silently and ascend vertically at speed also noiselessly are still something a large, piloted aircraft is unable to do 32 years later and is such a breakthrough I just don't think it would have been kept secret all these years, especially s the noise helicopters make is problematic e.g. noise complaints.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BS3
Paul_Exeter said:
If we do ever hear from the witnesses it would be extremely useful to clarify it they actually saw the object ascend vertically yet noiselessly or if they were distracted - perhaps by the planes - looked back to see it had gone and made that assumption (this has been suggested elsewhere on this forum with other cases where the UFO in question defied gravity).

Te ability to hover almost silently and ascend vertically at speed also noiselessly are still something a large, piloted aircraft is unable to do 32 years later and is such a breakthrough I just don't think it would have been kept secret all these years, especially s the noise helicopters make is problematic e.g. noise complaints.
Click to expand...

Yes - witness stories, and even recollections themselves, can be modified substantially in quite a short time. I recall one example given of an otherwise credible and sober witness' conscious memory of an event going from seeing lights to seeing disc-shaped structured objects within the space of just 48 hours - although it was almost certain she'd been looking at the lights of planes on approach to an airport.

One suggestion made elsewhere is that the object might be some sort of aerostat or balloon rather than an aircraft, albeit a secret one. Might be possible I suppose.
 
Paul_Exeter said:
This dropbox document by Wim Van Utrecht is the best argument for a hoax I have read to date and includes a convincing replication of the Calvine object:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/sr85cnmlkbjtjzw/The Calvine UFO Photo - A Christmas Star_.pdf

Credit where its due, the link is found within this blog post:

https://ufoconjectures.blogspot.com/2022/08/jose-caravaca-offers-explanation-for.html
Click to expand...

It's an interesting one and I do think a wire-suspended object is the most likely hoaxing route - though I'm not sure that finding a Christmas decoration available online in 2022 is much of a clincher that the same thing was used in 1990 to create the hoax. There are plenty of different objects that could look a bit like the craft.

It also doesn't address the second Harrier that JARIC found in one image.
 
Paul_Exeter said:
Nick Pope feeling left out:

http://nickpope.net/wpte19/the-calvine-ufo/

Bless...
Click to expand...

I find the whole Clarke / Pope rivalry really quite odd (that article uses the words "Nick Pope" a lot and doesn't mention Clarke once). They've been quite rude about each other in print.

I don't know, I expect the whole "if my colleague had actually bothered to read my article, ner ner ner" tone from the likes of Hynek / Klass / Sheaffer, and of course even stronger stuff from some of the wilder fringes of ufology, but this all seems slightly petty.
 
Not much news on the Calvine photo of late, though I see that another of the regular sceptical commenters on the case has finally got around to a theory suggested by @Paul_Exeter a few weeks back

 
BS3 said:
Not much news on the Calvine photo of late, though I see that another of the regular sceptical commenters on the case has finally got around to a theory suggested by @Paul_Exeter a few weeks back

Click to expand...
I saw that and laughed :)

Yes, it has all ground to a frustrating halt and unless Clarke is holding back some further knowledge or has a new breakthrough in his search for the witnesses then it seems this will become Ufology's very own 'Patty':

https://www.opb.org/news/article/bigfoot-patterson-gimlin-sasquatch/
 
I think it's clear that a good UFO photograph is very much like a UFO sighting in that people to some degree see what their internal filters let them see. Sure, it looks a bit like a fishing weight; it also looks a bit like a plastic Christmas star, or a distant stealth aircraft. Many sceptics appear to 'see' the aircraft in the picture as a man in a boat, which to me seems completely unconvincing, but clearly they've become invested in seeing the photo as a reflection, and that's now what they see.

Without finding the witness or the other five negatives, all we can really go on is: are there any inconsistencies in the story as presented (eg time of day)? Is there anything which suggests the object is close to the camera? Is any string visible? At present it's very much like 'Patty' in that respect.
 
The biggest inconsistency is the appearance of one or two Harriers in the photos, since none were flying that day. This implies that the Harriers were alien craft too, which makes one wonder why they would bother with the big lozenge-shaped flying brick.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sid
The MoD *say* that no Harriers were flying that day. If they were involved in covert activities I can see why the MoD would deny it.

...but Harriers involved in covert activities in a location where the public have a chance to observe them? Hmmmm....
 
DrPaulLee said:
The MoD *say* that no Harriers were flying that day. If they were involved in covert activities I can see why the MoD would deny it.

...but Harriers involved in covert activities in a location where the public have a chance to observe them? Hmmmm....
Click to expand...

lt’s a bit difficult not to observe jet aircraft, especially in a small, overcrowded country like the UK.

Assuming that it was a genuine UFO, and was being - intercepted? escorted? inspected? - by the RAF, all the authorities would have to do to discredit the photographer would be to deny that any Harriers were airborne at the time.

Accompany that with a wink and a tap to the nose, and it’s tantamount to denouncing the witnesses as fakers.

maximus otter
 
I think the biggest problem is that there were no Harriers based in mainland Scotland at that time, as Clarke notes.

One of the file notes says that the matter had been discussed with "ops 4 Squadron": they flew Harriers out of Gutersloh in Germany.
 
BS3 said:
I think the biggest problem is that there were no Harriers based in mainland Scotland at that time, as Clarke notes.

One of the file notes says that the matter had been discussed with "ops 4 Squadron": they flew Harriers out of Gutersloh in Germany.
Click to expand...

UAPMedia have studied the Operations Record Books for the RAF squadrons operating Harriers at the time, and reveal their results here.

TL/DR? "Wasn't us, guv'nor."

But they would say that, wouldn't they...

maximus otter
 
maximus otter said:
lt’s a bit difficult not to observe jet aircraft, especially in a small, overcrowded country like the UK.

Assuming that it was a genuine UFO, and was being - intercepted? escorted? inspected? - by the RAF, all the authorities would have to do to discredit the photographer would be to deny that any Harriers were airborne at the time.

Accompany that with a wink and a tap to the nose, and it’s tantamount to denouncing the witnesses as fakers.

maximus otter
Click to expand...
Whilst parts of England are densely populated I'm not sure you can say the same about the Highlands of Scotland...

This is interesting:

https://military-history.fandom.com/wiki/Strike_Attack_Operational_Evaluation_Unit

This was a unit based at Boscombe Down at the time and flew Harriers. RAF Boscombe Down also featured in UFO-lore at around the time of the Calvine incident, with rumours of US Black Projects stationed there:

https://drdavidclarke.co.uk/tag/raf-boscombe-down/
 
Last edited:
Paul_Exeter said:
Whilst parts of England are densely populated I'm not sure you can say the same about the Highlands of Scotland...

This is interesting:

https://military-history.fandom.com/wiki/Strike_Attack_Operational_Evaluation_Unit

This was a unit based at Boscombe Down at the time and flew Harriers. RAF Boscombe Down also featured in UFO-lore at around the time of the Calvine incident, with rumours of US Black Projects stationed there:

https://drdavidclarke.co.uk/tag/raf-boscombe-down/
Click to expand...
That is very true, not many people live there ~ and the word the professor used should have read ~ 'loch'. . . not lock!
 
Paul_Exeter said:
Whilst parts of England are densely populated I'm not sure you can say the same about the Highlands of Scotland...

This is interesting:

https://military-history.fandom.com/wiki/Strike_Attack_Operational_Evaluation_Unit

This was a unit based at Boscombe Down at the time and flew Harriers. RAF Boscombe Down also featured in UFO-lore at around the time of the Calvine incident, with rumours of US Black Projects stationed there:

https://drdavidclarke.co.uk/tag/raf-boscombe-down/
Click to expand...

We aren't talking the dark side of the moon here:

From Google Maps: "Calvine is a hamlet in Perth and Kinross, Scotland. It is sandwiched between the A9 road, to its north, and the Highland mainline railway..."

"The A9 is a major road in Scotland running from the Falkirk council area in central Scotland to Scrabster Harbour, Thurso in the far north, via Stirling, Bridge of Allan, Perth and Inverness. At 273 miles (439 km), it is the longest road in Scotland and the fifth-longest A-road in the United Kingdom. Historically it was the main road between Edinburgh and John o' Groats, and has been called the spine of Scotland.[1] It is one of the three major north–south trunk routes linking the Central Belt to the Highlands..."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A9_road_(Scotland)

"The Highland Main Line is a railway line in Scotland. It is 118 mi (190 km) long and runs through the Scottish Highlands linking a series of small towns and villages with Perth at one end and Inverness at the other. Today, services between Inverness and Edinburgh, Glasgow and London use the line."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highland_Main_Line

maximus otter
 
Last edited:
maximus otter said:
We aren't talking the dark side of the moon here:

From Google Maps: "Calvine is a hamlet in Perth and Kinross, Scotland. It is sandwiched between the A9 road, to its north, and the Highland mainline railway..."

"The A9 is a major road in Scotland running from the Falkirk council area in central Scotland to Scrabster Harbour, Thurso in the far north, via Stirling, Bridge of Allan, Perth and Inverness. At 273 miles (439 km), it is the longest road in Scotland and the fifth-longest A-road in the United Kingdom. Historically it was the main road between Edinburgh and John o' Groats, and has been called the spine of Scotland.[1] It is one of the three major north–south trunk routes linking the Central Belt to the Highlands..."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A9_road_(Scotland)

"The Highland Main Line is a railway line in Scotland. It is 118 mi (190 km) long and runs through the Scottish Highlands linking a series of small towns and villages with Perth at one end and Inverness at the other. Today, services between Inverness and Edinburgh, Glasgow and London use the line."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highland_Main_Line

maximus otter
Click to expand...
Ha ha, good repsonse

But then this opens up the questions as to why no-one else saw the object or any plane spotters noted the identity of the out-of-place Harriers (or Hunters).
 
maximus otter said:
We aren't talking the dark side of the moon here:

From Google Maps: "Calvine is a hamlet in Perth and Kinross, Scotland. It is sandwiched between the A9 road, to its north, and the Highland mainline railway..."

"The A9 is a major road in Scotland running from the Falkirk council area in central Scotland to Scrabster Harbour, Thurso in the far north, via Stirling, Bridge of Allan, Perth and Inverness. At 273 miles (439 km), it is the longest road in Scotland and the fifth-longest A-road in the United Kingdom. Historically it was the main road between Edinburgh and John o' Groats, and has been called the spine of Scotland.[1] It is one of the three major north–south trunk routes linking the Central Belt to the Highlands..."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A9_road_(Scotland)

"The Highland Main Line is a railway line in Scotland. It is 118 mi (190 km) long and runs through the Scottish Highlands linking a series of small towns and villages with Perth at one end and Inverness at the other. Today, services between Inverness and Edinburgh, Glasgow and London use the line."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highland_Main_Line

maximus otter
Click to expand...
It is a major road due to linkages but, sometimes, I can go miles with no-one around. Back then, cars were even more scarce and Inverness much less the tourist town it is today. Villages there are more accurately hamlets or townships. Something appearing for a few moments could quite easily be seen by very few people. When I first went up on the train, a family of otters were playing in a pond just outside the tracks. No-one else seemed to notice this.
Maybe not the dark side of the moon but certainly the back of beyond.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top