Would the Real Kevin Russell Please Stand Up?

 

Dr David Clarke has returned to the Calvine UFO case in his latest Substack essay. There have been a few developments and he continues to maintain a comparatively rational stance. I'm pleased to say he still rejects the absurd clown's day off dismissals I mention in the background links below. A man called Richard Grieve has come forward to tell Philip Mantle he worked at the hotel in Pitlochry in 1990 and so knew the two photographers. It is interesting that he did so before Dr Clarke's August 2022 story was published and until then a link between the hotel and the photographers was not widely known. The problem is, "Kevin Russell" remains illusive. I'm starting to wonder if that was ever his real name. Even when he was handing over a print of the photo privately to an RAF officer he may have decided to sign the back with a pseudonym, anticipating trouble. Maybe the real photographer is Richard Grieve and he told Mantle his story as an active decoy because he feels nervous that this old story has been dug up. Craig Lindsay can't remember the names of the witnesses and Mr Grieve says neither was called Kevin. A friend on Facebook has just suggested that the two chefs may have been threatened or paid off. Quite possibly; we know they received unwanted visits from government agents. David has worked closely with a photographic analyst called Andrew Robinson who demonstrates that the original crude photocopy was of the real print. Unfortunately Clarke then falls back down the skeptic rabbit hole when he tries to link the object in the photograph to the F117 Nighthawk, which had only been declassified three years earlier. He also suspects that it might be the experimental prototype codenamed "Hopeless Diamond". He demonstrates this in true skepper fashion by putting the two images together and saying the designs "clearly resemble the craft photographed in Scotland" when they very obviously don't. A toddler with a shape-sorter could see that. What's more, his latest news article repeats the witness' testimony: "Then the diamond craft shot vertically into the sky and disappeared without making a sound." For Clarke to be right, this part of the story needs to be apocryphal. It might well be, of course; but simply to assume so is a bit too convenient. It allows Clarke to repeat his rather narrow-minded "there are only two possibilities..." statement. Source: https://drclarke.substack.com/p/calvine-ufo-revisited. (Mail Online is now behind a paywall... is that a good or bad thing?... However, if you want to read Dr Clarke's newspaper article a friend has photographed the paper edition in good quality so it is legible when you magnify it. I have the image so leave your email in the comments if you want me to send it to you.) I've explained before how supposedly revealing UFO's to be secret aircraft might actually be an elaborate double-bluff, for example: https://hpanwo-voice.blogspot.com/2020/06/bob-lazar-on-richplanet-virtual-tour.html and: https://hpanwo-voice.blogspot.com/2023/08/the-aviary-film-review.html. Despite this, it is now very fashionable to believe the opposite. I don't know specifically if Dr Clarke does so, but he appears to be entertaining the idea. If he falls for that trick he will not find his way to the truth about the Calvine UFO.
See here for background: https://hpanwo-voice.blogspot.com/2022/10/calvine-clowns-day-off.html.
And: https://hpanwo-radio.blogspot.com/2022/08/programme-474-podcast-another-typical.html.
And: https://hpanwo-tv.blogspot.com/2022/08/ufo-disclosure-2022-why-now.html.
And: https://hpanwo-voice.blogspot.com/2023/04/calvine-photographer-doxed.html.