• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.
Another Calvine nugget has surfaced on Twitter:


Apparently this is the witness statement taken by the RAF Press Officer Lindsay. Interesting to note he received the photographs on 10 September, so they might not have been presented to the Daily Record until September and the incident allegedly occurred on 4th August.
 
My only reservation about the analysis is that they apparently identified the location by matching the fence posts but there is no background visible the photo beyond some hazy outlines, so there is an element of doubt

From memory (the file has now been deleted...), the author didn't identify the locus of the photo. He mentioned vague images of high ground in the background of enhanced sections; he didn't say where it was taken.

maximus otter
 
To clear up some of my earlier misconceptions; the event happened on 4 August 1990, and the youngest of the pair was probably 18, not 16 as I suggested earlier. Craig Lindsey never met them, but spoke to one of them on the phone. The MOD claims that they have not retained any other pictures, and the negatives were sent back to the Daily Record, so they appear to be lost irrevocably.
 
Last edited:
To clear up some of my earlier misconceptions; the event happened on 4 August 1990, and the youngest of the pair was probably 18, not 16 as I suggested earlier. Craig Lindsey never met them, but spoke to one of them on the phone.
So about to head off to uni in September...? Or maybe a gap year to fund, they were a big thing back them...? Whichever, some cash from the Daily Record for their 'UFO' photos wouldn't have gone amiss
 
  • Like
Reactions: BS3
From memory (the file has now been deleted...), the author didn't identify the locus of the photo. He mentioned vague images of high ground in the background of enhanced sections; he didn't say where it was taken.

maximus otter

That's right. At the risk of provoking a visit by three smartly-dressed geeks warning me off, my copy of the report has it like this;
to the right of the left hand thinner fence post and in front of the range of hills on the horizon, there is a slightly
lower hill or ridge with what appears to be three groupings of trees, a large grouping closest to the fence post followed
by a small group of 3-4 trees and finally what appears to be a single tree or possibly a pair of trees. A little further along
the ridge, approximately midway between the first and second fence post there appears to be a further lone tree on
this hill.
 
If we to consider a fortuitous hoax in a location other than that claimed, then check out the diamond fishing sinker in this link:


333409.image0.jpeg


https://www.dummies.com/article/bus...he-right-sinker-for-your-fishing-line-173791/

Its is not an exact match but there is a striking similarity. Seems some fishing folk make their own:


So they chance across a diamond sinker caught in the trees overhead and as they snap an artsy shot an RAF plane happens to be passing...?
 
Last edited:
If we to consider a fortuitous hoax in a location other than that claimed, then check out the diamond fishing sinker in this link:


View attachment 58061

https://www.dummies.com/article/bus...he-right-sinker-for-your-fishing-line-173791/

Its is not an exact match but there is a striking similarity. Seems some fishing folk make their own:


So they chance across a diamond sinker caught in the trees overhead and as they snap an artsy shot an RAF plane happens to be passing...?

It does look a bit like a legering weight and that might explain the thing at one end, where there's generally a swivel attached. I would expect it to be hanging vertically rather than horizontally but still...
 
If we to consider a fortuitous hoax in a location other than that claimed, then check out the diamond fishing sinker in this link:


View attachment 58061

https://www.dummies.com/article/bus...he-right-sinker-for-your-fishing-line-173791/

Its is not an exact match but there is a striking similarity. Seems some fishing folk make their own:


So they chance across a diamond sinker caught in the trees overhead and as they snap an artsy shot an RAF plane happens to be passing...?

lf it was close enough to the ground for someone to get a reasonable photo of it with a standard lens on a 35mm camera, surely the angler would have retrieved it?

maximus otter
 
It's quite disappointing to see Clarke getting a bit of stick over this, from both sides of the fence on Reddit and elsewhere. He's a great researcher, serious academic, and above all a 'time served' ufologist who has come round to his essentially sceptical position after many years of actually wearing down shoe leather investigating cases and interviewing people on the ground. In this respect he's much like another of my current favourite writers on the subject, David Halperin, though with a very different academic background.

He's allowed to change his mind over what the case might represent.

It would be nice to see a more collegiate sort of approach but neither the subject nor the social media format lend themselves to it, really.
 
Would there be some type of 'string' or something similar if this was actually a sinker or some hanging object -
and from the description in that impressive analysis, it was quite sizeable, very large, wasn't it?
 
Huge amount of discussion on the UFO subreddit of course. IMO this guy has nailed it.
Bur others are welcome to disagree.

I think part of the counter-argument to the reflection theory is that the bottom half of the UFO does not mirror the top half. But that assumes the UFO was originally a thing sticking out of water, and that assumption could be a mistake.

I think it’s more likely toe a flat square piece of plastic or card floating on top of a pool, which has been coloured diagonally (like the anarchist flag).

That means a hoax, then.

A crying shame because I so wanted this to be real
This is immediately what I saw when I looked at the photo. I took it to be a small piece of mud sticking out of the water and everything else is a reflection. I mean it could be another object of some sort but I definitely don't see anything mysterious.
 
This is immediately what I saw when I looked at the photo. I took it to be a small piece of mud sticking out of the water and everything else is a reflection. I mean it could be another object of some sort but I definitely don't see anything mysterious.
I've see a suggestion that the plane is a actually a bird viewed upside-down , possibly a grebe
 
I've see a suggestion that the plane is a actually a bird viewed upside-down , possibly a grebe

I saw this on Metabunk - seems a bit of a stretch. Having said all that, someone has just observed on that thread:

the photo just isn't good evidence, but there is a history and a story to it

Perhaps they're getting close to understanding what the UFO experience is about?
 
I saw this on Metabunk - seems a bit of a stretch. Having said all that, someone has just observed on that thread:



Perhaps they're getting close to understanding what the UFO experience is about?
It is incredibly frustrating for both sides of the argument that we haven't had the original two witnesses come forward or even someone who knew them. Even the staff Clarke has tracked down don't remember anything. Now I'm hearing they went poaching with a camera so they could make a record of what they nabbed; why, just in case the Police caught them?

The arguments are starting to go round in circles now and now we have anonymous posters on message boards claiming they are ex-military intelligence or whatever, but of course they can't tell you who these lads were. Perhaps the most interesting new speculation is that even at 9pm the area would have been busy with walkers and the lack of other witnesses is a red flag, not even an "I saw something from my car" or whatever.

I'm just grateful Clarke got this scoop and not Nick Pope but without witnesses I don't feel we will ever get an answer.
 
I was thinking that the mainstream publicity over this case might have brought the witnesses out.

One thing that's clear from all of this is that very few people, other than those familiar with Pope's book or Clarke's previous work, had actually heard of the Calvine case or were aware of the earlier poor copy of the photo unearthed by Clarke in 2009. It may be that the photographers never realised their photos had attracted any interest after 1990.
 
I ran across an article that claimed 6 photos were taken.

What happened to the other 5 photos ?

All negatives were, supposedly, returned to the Daily Record and then disappeared. As I understand it the print we see is taken from what was regarded as the 'best' photo, though obviously the others would have been very helpful in analysing what exactly was shown.
 
I think that the fact the negatives have vanished doesn't point to any cover up so much as it points to the general carelessness of large organisations of this type in retaining and filing records. Shelf space is limited, offices move, priorities change.

Clarke also related the story of several gun camera films of UFOs apparently once held by the MoD. A retired under secretary of state, Ralph Noyes, recalled being shown the films in 1970, including some dating "as far back as 1956" - almost certainly film from the Lakenheath-Bentwaters incident. Yet when he asked about them in the late 1980s they were no longer to be found: Nick Pope also apparently searched for them during his time with the MoD but drew a blank. Noyes thought they might have been binned, sent to the met office, or simply taken by a staff member. So a lot of stuff just disappeared in the filing system.
 
Well for once I agree with Nick Pope, we finally have a clear photo of an alleged UFO and it has turned into a dogfight between skeptic and believer. Over at Metabunk they are falling over themselves to prove it is a hoax but it has descended into speculation and counter-speculation, the mods are getting twitchy and they are no closer to a solution. Meanwhile, over at Reddit true ETH believers are ranting at those who doubt the evidence.

The object was described as having the ability to accelerate vertically with only a gentle hum. As others have pointed out elsewhere, this is heading into anti-gravity/recovered alien tech territory, which is all very 90s. It is also very convenient as it reduces the number of potential witnesses to a minimum, as opposed to, for example, disappearing horizontally in the direction of Pitlochry. The only technology openly out there that matches this ability is a drone and I suppose it might have been an attempt to make a drone with stealth capabilities (there was a Bonnybridge sighting a couple of years later that was researched by Malcolm Robinson and that with hindsight matched the size, movement and noise of a drone).

Anyway, I feel this thread will run out of steam without any fresh evidence. I certainly know that every time I veer towards one solution there is an argument made that pulls me back again. Hopefully David Clarke will uncover some new evidence and he and his team have done an excellent job so far.
 
Last edited:
Well for once I agree with Nick Pope, we finally have a clear photo of an alleged UFO and it has turned into a dogfight between skeptic and believer. Over at Metabunk they are falling over themselves to prove it is a hoax but it has descended into speculation and counter-speculation, the mods are getting twitchy and they are no closer to a solution. Meanwhile, over at Reddit true ETH believers are ranting at those who doubt the evidence.

The object was described as having the ability to accelerate vertically with only a gentle hum. As others have pointed out elsewhere, this is heading into anti-gravity/recovered alien tech territory, which is all very 90s. It is also very convenient as it reduces the number of potential witnesses to a minimum, as opposed to, for example, disappearing horizontally in the direction of Pitlochry. The only technology openly out there that matches this ability is a drone and I suppose it might have been an attempt to make a drone with stealth capabilities (there was a Bonnybridge sighting a couple of years later that was researched by Malcolm Robinson and that with hindsight matched the size, movement and noise of a drone).

Anyway, i feel this thread will run out of steam without any fresh evidence. I certainly know that every time I veer towards one solution there is an argument made that pulls me back again. Hopefully David Clarke will uncover some new evidence and he and his team have done an excellent job so far.

Clarke's former colleague Andy Roberts stated it fairly neatly on @Comfortably Numb's Facebook group - both the sceptical end of the pool and the 'true believers' are getting themselves in knots trying to fit the case to their worldview. It's the opposite to the Fortean approach I suppose!

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. I think we need the witnesses to try and better evaluate the apparent inconsistencies, but whether they will emerge is another matter.
 
The Harrier GR3 or 5? looks like it was built by a aircraft company,
the UFO by a early Submarine builder or boiler maker, not that it
proves anything one way or the other.
 
Speaking of convoluted explanations, Metabunk now seem to be onto the idea that the plane might have been a small rubber-band powered model flying over the water and the 'UFO' is a reflection.

(I know we've come up with some fairly convoluted stuff here, but that was in cases where people apparently sincerely reported that they'd been taking pot shots at small, glowing goblins or that they'd been kidnapped by crab-clawed robots; it's a different order of 'experience').

I don't know, I often wonder if many people's engagement with evidence is subconsciously governed by desire and fear - fear of the unknown, desire for the existence of higher powers. Mind you this neatly aligns with my own opinion on what UFOs might be, so maybe I'm just following my own prejudices.
 
Clarke's former colleague Andy Roberts stated it fairly neatly on @Comfortably Numb's Facebook group - both the sceptical end of the pool and the 'true believers' are getting themselves in knots trying to fit the case to their worldview. It's the opposite to the Fortean approach I suppose!

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. I think we need the witnesses to try and better evaluate the apparent inconsistencies, but whether they will emerge is another matter.
The hotel manager was the head chef in 1990. Clarke also tracked down a receptionist and another member of staff. None of them have any recollection of the event or can provide even first names for the two lads. I had just started work in a busy 50-odd bedroom New Forest hotel in 1990 and I can remember at least the first names of the staff, including the dishwashers. Hotel staff work unsociable hours (the reason they were out there at 9pm) and socialise together. Hotels also provide accommodation for staff, perhaps more so in the 80's/90s, although they may have been local. But then if they were two local lads someone should remember them, it is not a huge community.

This raise the possibility that it is simply the wrong hotel. There is no shortage of rather grand country house hotels in and around Pitlochry:

https://www.booking.com/city/gb/pit...-esZIE4o_3REtj3jyBhbQKTMah4f3g8EaAsLrEALw_wcB

Indeed, Clarke is puzzled by this total absence of recollection, all he was able to get was some fragment about it "being mentioned at a disco". However, hotel staff also socialise with staff from other hotels, we used to have a local hotels 5-a-side football tournament, so this may have been gossip from a different hotel. I know Clarke has done extensive research in this area and to my mind it is more likely to get results than arguing about reflections and the type of aircraft. We do have to consider that, after 32 years, if ex-Press Officer Craig Lindsay - now in his 80s - has unintentionally misremembered the name of the hotel, then is the rest of his testimony watertight...?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top