Claim: Original Calvine UFO Photo

[Andreas]

I'd guess the Calvine photo is a deliberate, planned hoax.
It might have been a spur of the moment thing, using something passably "UFO-shaped" that happened to be there after noticing a military aircraft (or aircraft plural), but I think this is less likely: It would take at least a little time to hang the "UFO", and combat jets don't often hang around for long (except during airshows, photo opportunities etc.)

It could be a kite, but a smaller object/ model might be more manageable (and less likely to be blown about, so needing less tethers to keep stable for the photo).
The Glasgow kite thing is probably a coincidence; it's summer (and during the school holidays), it's when these sort of things most often take place. Lots of other people would have flown kites in all sorts of locations across Scotland that summer.

If the object is a kite, I don't think colour is an issue, it could be painted.

Yep — probably just a coincidence, but still another piece of the puzzle worth taking into consideration. For me, it's not only about the festival itself, but rather the fact that it serves as a reminder that kites seemed to have been a fairly popular hobby at the time. There were large festivals, local clubs, and even stores dedicated entirely to kites. And when reading The Kiteflier, it's obvious that kite enthusiasts were often also interested in photography.

But again, this doesn't say anything definitive about the Calvine object — it simply opens up the possibility that we might be looking at a kite, and I think that such a possibility should be added to the list of candidates. Personally, I tend to lean toward it being some piece of junk that simply happened to look a bit like an angular "UFO," perhaps inspired by the triangles from the "Belgian UFO wave."

 

[Andreas]

It would be within the realm of possibility that somebody who did not even attend the festival might find one and decided to use it for a UFO prop.

Yeah, that's an intriguing possibility. According to old advertisements, there was indeed kite fighting at the festival, and I'm sure there were quite a few sad old wrecks lying around when it was over.

Also, we have the "white spots" on the Calvine object — they could potentially be tape used to repair rips. Well, it's just speculation, but it's an intriguing possibility. I took a screenshot from your video, converted it to black and white, and added some blur — and indeed, the tape(?) on your kite shows up as a white field.

 

[Andreas]

The report of the kite festival posted by @Giddierone (post #1779) looks pretty detailed! I think something as interesting as kite fighting would've been mentioned.

Here's an ad for the festival, featured several times in The Kiteflier in 1990, and kite fighting was indeed mentioned:

 

[Ann K]

A kite would explain several details, such as the slightly uneven edges and the overall flat appearance. However, I'm having a bit of trouble understanding why the bottom half appears darker than the top half.

On the other hand, photographing a tiny islet in the distance would answer ALL the questions of "what objects would work", "dark on the bottom half", "focus on a nearby object as well as a distant one", and all the versions of "how do we string this up between trees".

I'm firmly of the opinion that the photo was genuine, and the "hoax" lay only in the description. Occam's razor works against all the increasingly elaborate hoax scenarios that have been presented. Unfortunately we don't have any of the other photos that were mentioned, but if more than one actually existed, presumably the "hovering UFO" looked to be much the same in all of them or else a fake object would have been readily detected. There is no such problem with a motionless islet.

 

[Andreas]

On the other hand, photographing a tiny islet in the distance would answer ALL the questions of "what objects would work", "dark on the bottom half", "focus on a nearby object as well as a distant one", and all the versions of "how do we string this up between trees".

I'm not saying that a reflection in water is impossible, but personally I just don't see it. And I would argue that a hoax using models on strings — a kind of "UFO hoax 101" — is actually well aligned with Occam's razor as well.

This is obviously not the right thread to discuss this angle of the case, but I will soon post a few thoughts in the "Reflection in water hypothesis" thread. There are some issues I've encountered while investigating the case further for the article I'm writing, and I would love to hear your thoughts on them.

 

[deirdre]

This is important, since some researchers continually claim that it would have been extremely difficult to hoax the alleged six photos, ...

then bringing up stringing a kite between two trees tight enough to stay flat throughout a series of photographs while you reposition 1 to 2 model airplanes for each shot.. probably wont help them think "oh yea that sounds easy enough!"

 

[Andreas]

then bringing up stringing a kite between two trees tight enough to stay flat throughout a series of photographs while you reposition 1 to 2 model airplanes for each shot.. probably wont help them think "oh yea that sounds easy enough!"

And yet I have managed to recreate such a scenario without any real problems. Models on strings are classic old-school UFO hoaxing, and I don't really understand why this couldn't have been done in this case. And to be clear, I'm not in any way saying that a kite was necessarily used — it could have been any piece of junk with a diamond-shaped profile.

 

[deirdre]

And yet I have managed to recreate such a scenario without any real problems.

then do your ideas in real life and recreate the photos and show the naysayers that they are wrong when they say:

that it would have been extremely difficult to hoax the alleged six photos, ..

 

[NoParty]

Apologies for being a slug, who doesn't want to closely re-read the 1,800 posts,
here, but do we actually have hard evidence that 6 photos ever existed?

 

[deirdre]

Apologies for being a slug, who doesn't want to closely re-read the 1,800 posts,
here, but do we actually have hard evidence that 6 photos ever existed?

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/claim-original-calvine-ufo-photo.12571/post-276585 just documentation from the MOD

 

[John J.]

I think something as interesting as kite fighting would've been mentioned.

Oops!

Er, I mean "And I was right!"

(Thank you Andreas).

 

[Andreas]

Apologies for being a slug, who doesn't want to closely re-read the 1,800 posts,
here, but do we actually have hard evidence that 6 photos ever existed?

It's a valid question, but I do think there were six photos. The handwritten memo refers to them as "a number of color photographs" and also speaks of the negatives in the plural:

And the Loose Minute dated 14 September 1990 clearly states that "the MoD has been provided with six photographic negatives."

In other words, I think we can conclude that there were originally several photographs. What we don't know is exactly what they looked like.

 

[Andreas]

then do your ideas in real life and recreate the photos and show the naysayers that they are wrong when they say:

I have — and I've had a dialogue with both Clarke and Robinson about this. After crafting the "UFO" from cardboard, it took me around ten minutes to set up the entire scene, and wind wasn't really an issue even though it was a fairly windy day. (I've posted more from this experiment previously in the hoax thread.)

I didn't find a perfect spot to take the photos, hence the background buildings and trees, which tend to weaken the illusion a bit. But that doesn't really matter, since my point was merely to test the idea of using horizontal wires and a 7 cm jet. With just a foreground fence and a few nearby branches, the illusion would be complete.

And I want to make things clear. I'm not claiming to know that the photo was created this way — I just want to show that it is easy to recreate the scene using this technique. And it really is easy. (No, wind isn't an issue — it's simple to tighten the slightly elastic 0.2 mm fishing wire between two trees, and the jet can be fastened with a piece of tape so it can easily be slid along the wire between shots, etc.) And more importantly, a relatively shallow DOF helps create the illusion of distant objects in the sky. Therefore, ideas about ultra-secret US anti-gravity craft or alien visitors are unnecessary. We know that people have often hoaxed UFO photos, and before the digital age, hoaxers frequently used fishing wire and small models. And in some cases, they even added small airplanes for dramatic effect.

 

[deirdre]

I have — and I've had a dialogue with both Clarke and Robinson about this.

and clarke and robinson weren't ok with your cardboard photos?

 

[Andreas]

and clarke and robinson weren't ok with your cardboard photos?

I suppose they were, actually. It's just that we're looking at things from two different perspectives. Personally, it's enough for me if the photo could be a fake made with small models. They, on the other hand, want hard evidence proving that this is the case — and given the poor quality of Lindsay's old copy, proving anything beyond reasonable doubt is simply impossible. Likewise, it is impossible for anyone to prove that we are looking at a giant flying object in the sky, or a small stone in a lake.

But I don't really have a problem with Clarke's perspective. He genuinely wants to know the truth and has worked on the case for a very long time. It's thanks to his efforts that we have a photograph to investigate, documents to read, and testimonies to evaluate — rather than just stories and CGI recreations by Pope. My own approach — being satisfied with the possibility of a hoax — is obviously not enough if you want to fully explain the case.

 

[Scaramanga]

I'd guess the Calvine photo is a deliberate, planned hoax.

I do wonder if the profusion of hoax theories actually makes hoax more or less likely. That is to say, no-one can really explain it and we are all just throwing mud at the wall and hoping some sticks.

When I look at the 'best' ( or is it worst ) hoaxes...they all have that obviousness of explanation about them. George Adamski fooled many, but his photo hoax method was worked out. Same with the Gulf Breeze sightings and photos. And looking back, they were quite simple hoaxes...no elaborate upside down reflections in some random pond.

Same goes with the Travis Walton case. I've seen an explanation that to me convincingly shows that a fire tower ( fitted with lights ) was used as the 'UFO' and that Travis Walton and one other were in on the hoax and the rest of the team were not. It all fits neatly and simply ( though it takes 3 hours of video to explain it all ).

But with Calvine we don't quite seem to be able to nail it. I suspect the absence of the key witnesses is a large factor in that.

 

[deirdre]

And looking back, they were quite simple hoaxes...no elaborate upside down reflections in some random pond.

actually that would be the least elaborate explanation. you're taking a stroll with your camera and see some jets reflected in a pool of water and take a few shots. later when you develop the film you realize the pretty rock (it would be pretty in real life color) actually looks nothing like a rock in the photos.

My best photos (prettiest, coolest) are still ones i took with my old film camera where the focus was off.

 

[Scaramanga]

actually that would be the least elaborate explanation. you're taking a stroll with your camera and see some jets reflected in a pool of water and take a few shots. later when you develop the film you realize the pretty rock (it would be pretty in real life color) actually looks nothing like a rock in the photos.

I dunno. That does sound a bit elaborate in terms of coincidental line-up of things.

I always kick myself that I did not have any film in my camera for my own sighting. I've just filed an FOI request to get the original file ( from 50 years ago ), as I would love to see whether my memory of it corresponds to what is in the police file from the report I made that very day. Has my mind embellished it ? It will be fascinating to see.

 

[Ann K]

actually that would be the least elaborate explanation. you're taking a stroll with your camera and see some jets reflected in a pool of water and take a few shots. later when you develop the film you realize the pretty rock (it would be pretty in real life color) actually looks nothing like a rock in the photos.

It needn't even have been "pretty". If your intention is to get a photo of a reflected plane, you'd have to act fast, and that means that the photographer may not have deliberately "composed" the shot at all, just snapped the plane's reflection from wherever it could be seen. There was some mention (about a gazillion posts ago) of other photos, including one, if I recall, that mentions a poorer shot of a disappearing jet. That makes sense, because if you're attempting to get a picture of a swiftly moving object, you'd take a number of pictures.

(I'd put my camera on "burst" mode when watching the bird feeder, in which it took half a dozen pictures very rapidly. The first one would get the bird coming and the last would get the tail feathers disappearing, but I'd get the chance of a good bird pic in the middle.)

The reflected-islet hypothesis was mentioned right from the very beginning of this very lengthy discussion, and I still think it's the most likely and simplest explanation.

 

[Andreas]

But with Calvine we don't quite seem to be able to nail it. I suspect the absence of the key witnesses is a large factor in that.

Yeah, we just don't have enough information in this case. The photo is an old, low-quality copy; we don't know who the photographer is; we have no way of knowing for sure where or when the photo was taken; and the "missing five" additional photos are probably lost forever. The fact that some consider this to be "the best UFO photo ever" says a lot about the field of UFO photography.

 

[Andreas]

reflected-islet hypothesis was mentioned right from the very beginning of this very lengthy discussion, and I still think it's the most likely and simplest explanation.

It would be really interesting if someone tried to recreate the photo using this method. I completely understand why you lean toward this hypothesis, but personally I struggle to see how it could have worked in practice. Getting everything to line up — depth of field, angles, and so on — isn't something I've really seen anyone attempt.

 

[NorCal Dave]

If it was on the program, it likely would have been. But at most festivals, you get a fair amount of members of the public flying whatever they bring. We often have problems with fighter kite fans who show up with their kites and cutting thread (manja) and intentionally or accidentally cut down or damage some rather expensive kites. Most western events and many elsewhere have "no manja" rules, the enforcement of which is always tricky.

In short, it would not be at all surprising for "just folks" to show up with their fighter kites at an event who are not on the official program.

Controversy and scoff-laws in the kiting world! Who knew?

 

[JMartJr]

Controversy and scoff-laws in the kiting world! Who knew?

Oh, the stories I could tell, but they'd be off topic! ^_^

On topic, it would also not be all that unusual to find a fighter kite that had been cut down or lost unrelated to a festival, in areas where some folks are flying them. They aren't littering the ground, but somebody might come across one. Perhaps more likely would be acquiring one from a friend or coworker of South Asian descent, or even seeing one in a shop.

To speculate for a moment, I could see a person who witnesses a fighter falling out of the sky thinking, "Wow, that looks like a UFO," and moving from that to "I'm going to take that use it it take a UFO picture!"

But that chain of thought would apply to a star-shaped Christmas tree ornaments, or an unusual view where a rock in a pond looks like an object hovering in the sky, or any of a number of other things...

 

[Andreas]

But that chain of thought would apply to a star-shaped Christmas tree ornaments, or an unusual view where a rock in a pond looks like an object hovering in the sky, or any of a number of other things...

I agree. And this is the heart of the matter. People do fake UFO photos, and since we have no idea who took the photo, it's pointless to speculate about a potential motive. And you don't even need a motive to fake a UFO photo, do you? I've had a lot of fun trying to recreate the scene using models. Some bored teenagers might simply have done it for fun.

Speculating about the object itself, however, can be useful — not least if you try to recreate the photo using simple methods. Since the surviving copy of the photo is of very poor quality, it's impossible to say for sure what the object actually is. A kite, as well as a star-shaped ornament, are indeed potential candidates. A pyramid with a triangular base is another possibility, as is a simple cardboard cutout. Or why not just a piece of trash caught in the countryside?

My point is basically that the photo itself would be easy to fake using small models. Spotting such a fake without access to anything but the blurry copy is virtually impossible. That said, could it be a reflection or some other optical illusion? Sure. I'm not even convinced we can rule out some kind of cut-and-paste work in the darkroom. What I am fairly sure of, though, is that the photographer was most likely not telling the truth when describing what he saw. As soon as you start investigating this case, the whole thing quickly falls apart, and what was presented as one of the most interesting UFO cases ever by people like Nick Pope ends up being a big nothing.

 

[Andreas]

To speculate for a moment, I could see a person who witnesses a fighter falling out of the sky thinking, "Wow, that looks like a UFO," and moving from that to "I'm going to take that use it it take a UFO picture!"

It is tempting to think of a kite (or a kite-shaped object), perhaps fastened to a fishing line using two pieces of Scotch tape. Again, we will probably never know for sure, but it remains a possibility.

 

[Scaramanga]

It would be really interesting if someone tried to recreate the photo using this method. I completely understand why you lean toward this hypothesis, but personally I struggle to see how it could have worked in practice. Getting everything to line up — depth of field, angles, and so on — isn't something I've really seen anyone attempt.

I'm still inclined to the simplest explanation of all....

Everyone else is proposing that the 'UFO' is some sort of external object in the real world.....a rock in a pond, or a kite, or a model hanging from a tree. But by far the easiest hoax doesn't involve any external object. All you require is to take the photo...no UFO in it...then develop the print, and then stick a 'UFO' onto the print and photograph that. Here's an example I gave in another Calvine thread...

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/calvine-ufo-photo-reflection-in-water-hypothesis.12572/post-336390

That was the result of just a few minutes work. And a square of paper just 1/4 inch wide gets to look like an appreciable sized object in the sky. The blur of the UFO does not quite match that of the rest of the image. Mind you, it doesn't in the Calvine photo either. The UFO is the sharpest object in the image...which is a huge clue that my method was used. And it is all so simple.

Incidentally, my image above is from a photo taken at Loch Lomond in 1971 with a very cheap Instamatic 25. It was about the cheapest low quality camera you could get. How is an image take 20 years later such poor quality ? I have images taken with the same Instamatic 25 in 1991 ( yes, I had the camera for 20 years ) that are better quality than the Calvine photo....

 

[deirdre]

That does sound a bit elaborate in terms of coincidental line-up of things.

it's called synchronicity.

Getting everything to line up — depth of field, angles, and so on — isn't something I've really seen anyone attempt.

the theory has its own thread.

All you require is to take the photo...no UFO in it...then develop the print, and then stick a 'UFO' onto the print and photograph that.

yea im ok with that theory too.

with a very cheap Instamatic 25. It was about the cheapest low quality camera you could get. How is an image take 20 years later such poor quality ?

because he wasnt using an instamatic. allegedly. esp if you have to take a shot quickly you dont always have time to change your fstops or take your prescription glasses off or get the focus just right.

The UFO is the sharpest object in the image...

disagree.

 

[NorCal Dave]

All you require is to take the photo...no UFO in it...then develop the print, and then stick a 'UFO' onto the print and photograph that.

Yeah, I think we all still consider that a possibility. A photo of a photo. Again, any number of relatively easy ways to construct the photo in camera, no need for darkroom manipulation. I think even that may be a possibility, but I don't know how common home dark rooms were in the UK. The model and/or glass set up is actually pretty quick and easy, once one works it out. After working out the logistics, I could create a similar photo by myself in 5 minutes or so. Probably quicker if I had a helper.

How is an image take 20 years later such poor quality ?

As noted before, it seems the photo we are left with is in fact a photo of a photo, and maybe a quickly made one. Both DoD documents clearly state the original photo(s) were in color. This photo is apparently B&W on color paper for some reason. The story is that Lindsay needed a copy of one of the photos to fax to London and the newspaper, who had the photos and possibly the negatives at the time, provided him with one. This is the photo he supposedly faxed, subsequently kept for himself and we're all taking about now. The Daily Record published in both color and B&W back in the '90s, so their photo department was set up for both. Either they already had a B&W copy handy, or they quickly made one for Linsday. The rush job may explain the using of the color paper, and if they knew he was going to fax it, B&W makes more sense.

It still means the famous copy is a photo of a photo, so at least an analog 2nd generation. IF your idea is correct and the original is a photo of a photo, then we're getting out to 3rd and 4th generations of analog technology. Even if the original is a model set up of some kind, it may have been slightly out of focus to hide what was going on.

 

[Dave51c]

How is an image take 20 years later such poor quality

Being a silver halide process if the negatives or prints were not properly washed and fixed [1] then they can degrade over time if not stored properly - light fast and tempturate control. (Been there, done that)

Each analog camera copy of a print is usually pretty lossy in terms of image quality if not done with care. (Been there, done that)

Newspaper darkrooms that I knew of operated for speed not archival processing.

The rush job may explain the using of the color paper, and if they knew he was going to fax it, B&W makes more sense.

As long as the colour cast in this process is corrected for then it's fine (to compensate for the lack of orange mask of colour negatives) - maybe the darkroom tech was already in the middle of colour work and didn't want to swap out enlarger heads or open up the B&W bench.

[1]

When the development process has been finished, the film is bathed in a solution of photographic fixer (sodium thiosulfate), a chemical designed to dissolve the undeveloped silver halide crystals still embedded within the film emulsion

https://evidentscientific.com/en/mi...ledge-hub/photomicrography/bwprocessingerrors

 

[John J.]

I don't know how common home dark rooms were in the UK.

Not sure how common in terms of numbers or compared to other countries, but it was certainly a hobby thing. One of my schoolteachers in the 1980s (in UK) had a darkroom and did his own processing.

If the Calvine photographer had an interest in photography, I don't think it would have been difficult for them to find someone with a darkroom, or find out how to construct one (dependent on having access to a suitable room/ garage/ shed, of course). Can't remember a time when there weren't photography hobby magazines in pretty much every newsagent.

The Cottingley Faery photographs, 1917, were first developed by the father of one of the (ahem) witnesses:

Elsie's father, Arthur, was a keen amateur photographer, and had set up his own darkroom. The picture on the photographic plate he developed showed Frances behind a bush in the foreground, on which four fairies appeared to be dancing.

Wikipedia, Cottingley Fairies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cottingley_Fairies

 

[Ann K]

Not sure how common compared to other countries, but it was certainly a hobby thing. One of my schoolteachers in the 1980s (in UK) had a darkroom and did his own processing.

My mother did her own developing in the bathroom in the 1950s. Dad made a blackout screen for the window, they bought a red lightbulb and a lens, and dad made her an adjustable enlarger. It's not that complicated, when you're dealing with black-and-white film.

 

[Andreas]

It still means the famous copy is a photo of a photo, so at least an analog 2nd generation. IF your idea is correct and the original is a photo of a photo, then we're getting out to 3rd and 4th generations of analog technology. Even if the original is a model set up of some kind, it may have been slightly out of focus to hide what was going on.

Yes indeed, this is important to remember. Lindsay's copy was most likely made by photographing one of the original color prints. It is slightly damaged — I'm sure it's scratched, there could be stains, and it was stored for decades before being scanned by Robinson. A lot of details could indeed have been "washed away."

The negatives and the original photos handed over to the MoD are another matter, but since we know next to nothing about them — and we have no details about the 1990 MoD investigation — it leaves open the possibility that even a relatively simple and sloppy hoax could be involved.

The photo could have been staged in several different ways. The only reason I lean toward a hoax setup using small models is that this is a common method used by amateur pranksters.

 

[Andreas]

One more thing. We often assume a great deal about the additional five photographs — not least that the "jet" is visible in several of the frames, moving across the scene. I was quite convinced this was the case, but I'm not so sure anymore.

I don't believe we have any trustworthy testimony from anyone who claims to have seen all six photos. Nick Pope has made quite a few claims over the years, but obviously those statements should be taken with a grain of salt. I recently spoke to Nick about this, and in my view, it seems highly unlikely that he ever saw the original photographs at all — only photocopies.
In other words, we are left with what is written in the MoD files. In the Loose Minute, we read:

"They show a large stationary, diamond-shaped object past which, it appears, a small jet aircraft is flying. The negatives have been considered by the relevant staffs who have established that the jet aircraft is a Harrier (and also identified a barely visible second aircraft, again probably a Harrier) but have reached no definite conclusion regarding the large object."

But does this really tell us that we see the jet in several frames? In the image we have access to, we do see a jet-like silhouette traveling from right to left. The mention of a "second aircraft" could mean that two aircraft were visible in one of the frames. However, it seems just as plausible that the jet is only clearly visible in the frame copied for Lindsay, while in one of the other shots a small, blurry spot was interpreted as a second aircraft. In the remaining four shots, there may have been no visible jet at all.

I'm not claiming that this is the case — only that it highlights the problem of making assumptions about the additional five frames.

 

[Dave51c]

One more thing. We often assume a great deal about the additional five photographs — not least that the "jet" is visible in several of the frames, moving across the scene. I was quite convinced this was the case, but I'm not so sure anymore.

Frame rates of manual cameras with electric winder or motor drive of the time were very slow - 2 to 4 fps typical - the high end Nikon F4 maxed out at 5.7 fps. On a manual wind 35mm SLR maybe one frame every 2 sec if you are quick.

However, it seems just as plausible that the jet is only clearly visible in the frame copied for Lindsay, while in one of the other shots a small, blurry spot was interpreted as a second aircraft. In the remaining four shots, there may have been no visible jet at all.

Even having just one more frame would be so good.

 

[Andreas]

Even having just one more frame would be so good.

Yes indeed. Assuming the jet was traveling at around 400 knots, the photographer would have had only a very brief window to capture the shots:

 

[Scaramanga]

Yeah, I think we all still consider that a possibility. A photo of a photo. Again, any number of relatively easy ways to construct the photo in camera, no need for darkroom manipulation. I think even that may be a possibility, but I don't know how common home dark rooms were in the UK. The model and/or glass set up is actually pretty quick and easy, once one works it out. After working out the logistics, I could create a similar photo by myself in 5 minutes or so. Probably quicker if I had a helper.

No need for a dark room at all. Indeed, no need to even go to the original location to create the hoax. You just take your original photo where there's a Harrier flying across the valley, and stick a piece of paper shaped like a UFO onto the print. Then you photograph that.

I still maintain that the photo is crap quality for something taken in 1990. This photo below of the view from 'Surprise View' ( in the Lake District, looking over towards Skiddaw ) was taken with a 1971 Kodak Instamatic 25. A 20 year old camera at the time, that has no auto-focus or indeed any focus settings at all. The photo was taken in 1990, same year as the Calvine incident, and under very similar conditions. It is better quality ( look at the level of detail in the clouds and the distant hills ) than the Calvine photo...taken on a crappy little camera that only had a small lens and two light settings ( cloudy or sun ). And this copy of it has been scanned from a mere 3 inch by 3 inch print and digitised....which in itself loses some of the sharpness and detail. Yet it still manages to be crisper and clearer than the Calvine photo....

I just don't buy the notion that the Calvine photo was taken hurriedly hence the poor quality. If I recall correctly, the alleged UFO was visible for some minutes and they even had time to take 6 photos. That does not sound like a hurried exercise. Whereas in fact this was...it was taken during a 20 mile walk and we had to hurry to get to Keswick. Yet it still manages to be better quality than the Calvine photo, despite being taken in a hurry on a cloudy day with a very cheap and nasty 20 year old camera....

 

[Scaramanga]

Yes indeed. Assuming the jet was traveling at around 400 knots, the photographer would have had only a very brief window to capture the shots:

Well, that is 460mph, which is 674 feet per second. The Harrier is 48 feet. So it would travel 14 times its length every second. Of course, it then depends on what the shutter speed was of the camera. My Lake District photo above had a 1/25th of a second exposure ( basically the 'cloudy' setting on the Instamatic 25 ). In 1/25th of a second that Harrier would travel 26 feet.....over half its length. It ought to be a complete blur.

 

[Andreas]

I still maintain that the photo is crap quality for something taken in 1990.

I just don't buy the notion that the Calvine photo was taken hurriedly hence the poor quality.

It is indeed of very poor quality. But the problem is that we simply don't know what the original photo looked like. What we have today is a 35-year-old copy — a photo of a photo. I agree that the poor quality was hardly caused by the picture being taken in a hurry. However, the Daily Record made a cropped black-and-white copy of what was presumably a color photograph. And at least to me, Lindsay's copy appears somewhat bleached.

All that said, I think it's impossible to say for sure how the photo was created. The quality of Lindsay's copy is simply not good enough.

 

[Dave51c]

No need for a dark room at all. Indeed, no need to even go to the original location to create the hoax. You just take your original photo where there's a Harrier flying across the valley, and stick a piece of paper shaped like a UFO onto the print. Then you photograph that.

That's one way for sure, but the grain structure under magnification would make that easy to detect, especially along the edges of the stuck on paper.

 

[Scaramanga]

That's one way for sure, but the grain structure under magnification would make that easy to detect, especially along the edges of the stuck on paper.

But if that's the case then you should be able to spot the grain structure give-away in this hoax I made. But I can't, because ( as with the Calvine photo ) the level of blur and poor focus overwhelms the grain structure at the edges of the 'UFO'.