The Calvine UFO Image is finally out

a reply to: ConfusedBrit


Cool!! Thanks for all that info I'm not too knowledgeable on this particular event

originally posted by: Direne
a reply to: ConfusedBrit

It is not a matter of whether the pic is genuine or not. It is a matter for the ufologists to prove it is not a blimp.

I wouldn't call it a blimp because of the geometric shape. Blimps are known as non-rigid-hull airships and they use the pressure of the lifting gas (usually helium these days) to shape the blimp, which tends to give them rounded shapes like the Goodyear blimp.

Rigid Hull airships on the other hand do not rely on the pressure of the lifting gas to shape the structure, rather they have a rigid frame which does that, and the diamond shape certainly has more characteristics of a rigid hull airship than a non-rigid hull airship aka "blimp".

The rigid hull airships also have some advantages overcoming engineering limitations of blimps which can only be made so large...the rigid hull airships can be made much larger. Here's a comparison of a rigid hull airship (the Graf Zeppelin) with the Goodyear blimp, look at the size difference!

Rigid Airships and Blimps: Two structural approaches to cargo transport


Here's a rigid hull airship with pointy ends from about 1901 flying past the Eiffel tower, so these things are not new:

Santos-Dumont flight around the Eiffel Tower circa 1901


The TV series "UFO Hunters" had a guest appearance by aviation writer Bill Scott who talked about "Rigid Hull Airships" and he seemed pretty convinced that the military had them and they may keep them secret for as long as they want, as long as they think the secrecy is useful.

So I do think it's likely a rigid hull airship, one not publicly disclosed, but that sort of makes it a "UFO", not in the "UFOs are alien craft" sense, but in the "UFOs are flying objects which have not been identified" sense.

If it was a prototype, and if Nick Pope's artistic recreation showing the control surfaces at the tail end is anywhere near correct (and the original photo does seem to suggest something like that), I would note the control surfaces seem relatively small, but I guess that's what prototypes are for, to find what does and doesn't work. They might have been trying to keep control surfaces small and use the geometric shape to minimize radar signature. Remember the F-117 used the angled surfaces to minimize radar signature, along with other tricks of the trade. Rigid hull airships are certainly massive visual targets even if they can reduce the radar signature somehow with fancy shapes and coatings, but I suspect they can minimize the visual problem somewhat by using them at night where they can transport massive amounts of cargo almost silently.

Ever examined Vimana’s ? Reminds me of one to be honest.

Confusion here appears to be from the artistic ‘improvement’ of the photo. That has really just made the whole thing look fake, which is may be.

The sort of weird shape with no obvious method of propulsion I would expect though.

a reply to: mirageman

So the "line drawing" from the earlier MOD release (DEFE 31-180) was actually a copy of the photo (this photo), which makes sense as Craig Lindsay likely would have copied the one photo sent with the negatives.

So actually this photo, albeit a cropped even lower res version, has been in the public domain for over a decade.

originally posted by: StratosFear
a reply to: Macenroe82

I could be mistaken as well, By the 90`s the Hunter wouldve been retired as front line aircraft decades ago for sure. I had it in my head the photo was taken earlier.

The Hawker Hunter was still used by The RAF for training until the early 1990's.

One of the training airfields that used the Hawker Hunter was RAF Leuchars Scotland, which is about 70 miles from Calvine.

Just a thought.

originally posted by: Jaaaaamazing
I am confused what that has to do with Nick Pope's statement which was soley about weather or not that was the poster in his office, it clearly was

a reply to: mirageman

Well you said

...Nick Pope has come out and said he can't confirm or deny if this was the photo he had up in his office at the MOD as it may still be classified. So basically confirming it is the one he had up

My point, in short, was that the UFO photo/poster on his wall wasn't ever classified by the UK MoD. But Nick Pope has a reputation for exaggeration.

The MoD confirmed in a 14th Sept 1990 Memo that the negatives to the Calvine UFO were returned to the Scottish Daily Record newspaper. Nick Pope was not assigned to Secretariat (Air Staff) 2a until July of 1991.

Here is that memo. As you can see, MOD Memo DEFE-24-1940 [p116]

The MoD was expecting the picture(s) to appear in the newspaper. So if the photos were classified this memo would not exist. Again, this memo was issued before Nick Pope's tenure.



That doesn't mean pressure wasn't placed on the newspaper or the photographers to prevent publication via a D-notice.

To put things in even more context the photo was taken on August 4th 1990. Two days earlier, Iraq had invaded Kuwait.

a reply to: Macenroe82

Very interesting. My observation is this. From the OP's linked article...

Minutes later, they heard the scream of a jet aircraft going north: In 1990, RAF Leuchars in Fife had two squadrons of Tornado fighters on 24-hour standby to intercept Russian intruder aircraft.

The jet came back and circled the ‘thing’ before heading off on its original course, as if the pilot had seen the object too and had come back for a closer look.

The jet in the image is not a Tornado.

But nice to see an image that is not completely blurred and distorted.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Fair. Yes, I agree with you. Let's call it a rigid hull airship. Perhaps it was even just meant to serve as a passive target for radar testing purposes. I'm sure if we dig a bit further we can even find drawings from the 80's early-90's of those experimental platforms.

a reply to: chunder

I've cross posted this from the older thread on this case.

I didn't quite get the perspective exact. But this should give an approximate comparison by overlaying one on the other.



It would seem that this photo was the original source for the "line-drawings" that are contained within the MoD files on the case.

a reply to: Direne

The angular sides are highly suggestive of a Stealth blimp.

a reply to: Macenroe82

Thanks for posting this news story.
On the one hand, it's great to finally see the pic (remember reading about it in UFO Mag many years ago) but on the other hand it had such infamy I was hoping you'd be able to see the aliens in the windows and a made in alpha centari sticker on it's fuselage.

a reply to: Direne

Assuming we are past the point where the photo is accepted as not being a hoax and that the hikers story is taken at face value then in calling it a blimp or rigid hull airship you are ignoring the elephant in the room i.e. the object shot up vertically and disappeared.

a reply to: Kurokage

lol I know that feeling all to well.
Being in my position with MUFON I often get to see the dirty details of a case that sounds amazing on the surface.
But when you look into it, you realize the investigator was yet another "ultra believer" to infiltrate the Org.
One of the types that sees a satellite flare and thinks the aliens are sending them messages haha.

So many let downs in this field.
And even more so wack-jobs.

originally posted by: chunder
a reply to: Direne

Assuming we are past the point where the photo is accepted as not being a hoax and that the hikers story is taken at face value then in calling it a blimp or rigid hull airship you are ignoring the elephant in the room i.e. the object shot up vertically and disappeared.

Be careful of Nick Pope 'exaggerations' when claiming that the object shot up vertically and disappeared.

Nick Pope has claimed this in The Sun a couple of years ago....and in other places too.

....I soon got the story out of my predecessor and read the file myself. It was an extraordinary tale: two men had been out hiking near Calvine in Scotland.

.....a massive UFO hanging in the sky above their heads, silent, motionless and menacing. Awestruck, they shot off six photographs before the object accelerated away at immense speed – vertically!

The Scum Newspaper

But the MoD file states only that :

..a large stationary diamond shaped object past which, it appears, a small jet aircraft is seen

originally posted by: chunder
a reply to: Direne

Assuming we are past the point where the photo is accepted as not being a hoax and that the hikers story is taken at face value then in calling it a blimp or rigid hull airship you are ignoring the elephant in the room i.e. the object shot up vertically and disappeared.

We can only make judgements on what we have evidence for. If the photo is considered genuine, that doesn’t automatically follow that we should also believe everything else that was claimed.

In all of my years in the RAF Police, (and that spanned the 80s and working with the USAF) I never once heard any cops talk about UFOs or the like, even test flights of things that looked like them. Be sure you’d have many of us at such an event. You might claim ‘need to know’ but you’d have had to have been there to understand we talked about everything with each other.

I received calls from members of the public concerning UFO sightings which I passed on to a duty desk but they all pretty much just sounded like aircraft sightings in the dark. Nothing exciting.

a reply to: mirageman

Fair point, I thought I had read that somewhere directly from a comment from one of the hikers but maybe not.

Shame that neither of the hikers or the Harrier pilot have come forward.

Will have to dig out the link to the North sea oil rig worker who described seeing a diamond shaped object being refueled in flight - not the recreation image that goes with that story as that will just confuse further but just to check the dates to see if close to when these pictures were taken.

originally posted by: Macenroe82
a reply to: Kurokage

lol I know that feeling all to well.
Being in my position with MUFON I often get to see the dirty details of a case that sounds amazing on the surface.
But when you look into it, you realize the investigator was yet another "ultra believer" to infiltrate the Org.
One of the types that sees a satellite flare and thinks the aliens are sending them messages haha.

So many let downs in this field.
And even more so wack-jobs.

I imagine it's a very thin line to walk and remain open-minded but also scientific in you approach and not feel deflated sometimes.

a reply to: chunder

The only ones disappearing were the hikers, and the Harrier's pilot. And my faith in UFOs.

I accept the view from the peak of the mountain that day had to be beautiful, though.

a reply to: chunder

...Shame that neither of the hikers or the Harrier pilot have come forward.

Assuming the photo isn't a hoax, then maybe with the cat out of the bag, someone will go public?

And I know the MoD states staff identified the aircraft is a Harrier. But how do we know it was a Harrier that is in the photo? Some have suggested a Hawker Hunter of course. But maybe it was an F111 or F4 and the angle in the photo is slightly deceiving to us? The resolution isn't the best.

It does look like a Harrier, but if not the case, then that would explain why the MoD could not trace any operating in the area on Aug 4th 1990.

a reply to: mirageman

I'm not sure much store can be put in the fact that they stated they couldn't trace any Harrier's in the area. If there were and they admitted that if the story was then run in the papers there would have been a lot further questioning. Easy just to say no Harrier there and put further doubt on the photo.