Calvine UFO Photo - Reflection In Water Hypothesis

[Scaramanga]

I am quite certain there is enough information in this photo to be able to locate it. Places have been geolocated with far less from a single photo. I thought they already had stated the spot actually, and I don't know if that was accurate, but if so, it would be easy to verify thanks to the geographical details you can faintly make out in the background of the image.

On the reflection debate, I've not seen anyone come close to demonstrating it would be possible to take a photo like this without manipulation. Every reflection image posted in this thread (and any other I've seen) clearly aren't the same, and don't take in to account ALL aspects of the image, such as reflection physics, position, angle, field of view, weather, time of day, and the fence (that could be easily replicated in part). If it were a reflection, someone could replicate it. There's some amazing photographers out there, and it would be quite easy were it actually do-able.

Well I'm glad I'm not the only person who finds it totally obvious that there is landscape in the background behind the fence. At the very bottom of the photo you can clearly see on the left a hillside with trees on it. The feint outline of more distant hills is also visible. I'm not clear why anyone thinks this is anything else, given that with the camera pointing almost horizontally one would expect there to be distant landscape in the image. When any hoax theory skips the blindingly obvious....then it becomes more suspect than what is clearly in the photo.

 

[JMartJr]

I see what you are refering to, but am unsure whether it is distant hills or a distant cloud layer or something else.

 

[olvr80]

I see what you are refering to, but am unsure whether it is distant hills or a distant cloud layer or something else.

It's very clearly a landscape with hills. The lines are too clean for it to be cloud layer.

As Scaramanga says, it's what you would EXPECT to see if the photo is genuine (i.e not a reflection). Furthermore, take a street view tour around the Calvine area. You see fences exactly like that and similar hills/landscape everywhere. There is nothing about the photo which doesn't fit in respect to all the geographical details we know about it.

 

[IdahoAstro]

But it's not simple though, they would have to take a pic of a rock reflecting in the water, that doesn't mirror like it is a reflection. Then ad a double exposure of it against another pic with clouds and a plane flying by

Hanging something from a tree is far simpler

BTW, anyone have a link to the hand written incident report where it supposedly says the object shot off?

Reflections don't necessarily look identical to the original object, especially with low-angle reflections, because the reflected light traveled down to the water before it was reflected up to the camera. So, perspective effects will often make them appear different. Here's an extreme example:

 

[JMartJr]

It's very clearly a landscape with hills. The lines are too clean for it to be cloud layer.

Earlier in one of the threads on this incident, there was speculation that a loose fence-wire could be what we are seeing as a sharp boundary. When I look at the pic looking for distant hills, it looks like distant hills to me, but when I look at it looking at a slack/loose wire, I can see where that might be what it is. I don't feel strongly certain which it actually is... and if there are two possibilities, there might be another not-yet-thought-of possibility.

If somebody could find a view matching that line of hills, that would pretty much clench it. To my knowledge that has not happened.

I know if no reason to doubt the photo, whether genuine or a hoax, was taken near Calvine... but with the caveat that IF it is a hoax then the perpetrator's story is a lie and it MIGHT have been taken elsewhere. Similar fences and hills being visible around Calvine in Street View does not rule out it being taken elsewhere, unless it can be shown that something in the pic is UNIQUE to the Calvine area.

 

[Ann K]

Earlier in one of the threads on this incident, there was speculation that a loose fence-wire could be what we are seeing as a sharp boundary. When I look at the pic looking for distant hills, it looks like distant hills to me, but when I look at it looking at a slack/loose wire, I can see where that might be what it is. I don't feel strongly certain which it actually is... and if there are two possibilities, there might be another not-yet-thought-of possibility.

If somebody could find a view matching that line of hills, that would pretty much clench it. To my knowledge that has not happened.

I know if no reason to doubt the photo, whether genuine or a hoax, was taken near Calvine... but with the caveat that IF it is a hoax then the perpetrator's story is a lie and it MIGHT have been taken elsewhere. Similar fences and hills being visible around Calvine in Street View does not rule out it being taken elsewhere, unless it can be shown that something in the pic is UNIQUE to the Calvine area.

Here's a photo I found that might illustrate the possible "not-hills" hypothesis, which I lean toward. The line of dark dots reaching up from what is seen by some to be hills looks to me much more like the visual effect of ripples on the shore. And given the apparent brightness of what looks like sky (or reflection of sky), the dark dots seem out of place if it is indeed a hill.

 

[Mendel]

The problem with this being a hill line is that I'd typically expect a barbed-wire fance to be below eye level, which makes the crest of these "hills" very much below eye level, which means the photographer is on pretty much the highest hill around, which makes it unlikely for there to be a fence.

At first glance, it looked like some field sloping off into the mist.

If it was a fence like this, the barbed wire would be above eye level. It should then also be findable, not too many installations using these are out in the highlands, I expect. (airport fence?)

 

[Easy Muffin]

My first thought when I saw the picture was airport fence + hangars too but I suppose it could also be lower fence + distant landscape if the setting resembled an environment like this one here.

This picture approaches the kind of scene my mind tells me is what I'm looking at in the Calvine photo. I'm honestly struggling to see a water surface in it but I may be biased because I don't find the reflection theory at all convincing.

 

[John J.]

View attachment 57789
If it was a fence like this, the barbed wire would be above eye level. It should then also be findable, not too many installations using these are out in the highlands, I expect. (airport fence?)

Looking at the 22Mb image of the claimed Calvine UFO linked to by Rory (28/10/22)
I think it's likely that the first fencepost on the left- if it is part of the fence- is some type of fencing pin (sometimes called a pin stake).

'Detail' from lower left of image:

Agricultural use fencing pins:

(image from Farmer's Weekly, accessed 12/02/23)
https://www.fwi.co.uk/livestock/identify-control-common-farm-grassweeds

(image of pigtail post from Premier 1 Supplies, accessed 12/02/23)
https://www.premier1supplies.com/detail.php?prod_id=17225&cat_id=47

There are also small 'clumps' visible on the topmost strand of wire which resemble the tufts of hair / wool frequently left by livestock on wire fences

While the image we have is indistinct, I think it's likely to be showing a modest agricultural fence, not a security fence.
-Which, if correct, won't help us much in determining a location!

 

[Scaramanga]

View attachment 57788
The problem with this being a hill line is that I'd typically expect a barbed-wire fance to be below eye level, which makes the crest of these "hills" very much below eye level, which means the photographer is on pretty much the highest hill around, which makes it unlikely for there to be a fence.

At first glance, it looked like some field sloping off into the mist.

View attachment 57789
If it was a fence like this, the barbed wire would be above eye level. It should then also be findable, not too many installations using these are out in the highlands, I expect. (airport fence?)

Here's something interesting....

I began to wonder if the 'fence post' on the far left IS actually the next fence post in line. A little measuring, and it clearly isn't. If you take the distance between the two main fence posts and extend that to the left, the next fence post in line ought to be behind the branches and leaves that one can see. And sure enough, you can just about make it out. So the narrow object with the gnarly bit at the end is in completely the wrong place to be a fence post...it is even leaning in rather the wrong direction....and in my view it is actually a branch or small twig in the foreground....

 

[Mendel]

and in my view it is actually a branch or small twig in the foreground....

or a piece of cloth or plastic tape knotted around the top wire

 

[John J.]

I began to wonder if the 'fence post' on the far left IS actually the next fence post in line.

If it is a pin stake, it wouldn't be a planned part of a permanent fence- more likely used for additional, temporary support of the wire if one of the original fence-posts were removed for any reason. Can be hammered (or pushed) into the soil anywhere.

Not sure we can take the regular spacing of fence posts as a given.

 

[Robert Sheaffer]

Here is a really interesting 'water reflection' photo, in a flooded park in Lakeside, CA. As you can see, the water is quite still. One has to look carefully to figure out what you are seeing. But the water still has enough tiny ripples to mess up having a really good reflection.
I don't accept the 'water reflection' hypothesis. My opinion: Most likely two guys did the Calvine hoax. One held the small "UFO', probably something like that Christmas star on a fishing line. The other guy focused the camera, and waited for one of the military jets to pass by. Or: one guy could have set it all up by himself, if he first manages to tie the UFO to appear in the correct place, then work the camera.

 

[deirdre]

The other guy focused the camera, and waited for one of the military jets to pass by. Or: one guy could have set it all up by himself, if he first manages to tie the UFO to appear in the correct place, then work the camera.

don't forget, all he really has to do is go to one of the many airshows in England and he'd know exactly where the jets would be flying. easy peasy.

(although im not ruling out reflection, or photo manipulation, as both still technically possible. )

 

[Jam17]

don't forget, all he really has to do is go to one of the many airshows in England and he'd know exactly where the jets would be flying. easy peasy.

(although im not ruling out reflection, or photo manipulation, as both still technically possible. )

Has it been considered that this is a picture of Schiehallion and it's shadow cast on the mist over Strahtummel? Having lived in the area for 45 years it seems to me as someone tried to catch a picture of a low level training flight from RAF Leuchars as it flew down Strathtummel.

 

[Max Phalange]

Has it been considered that this is a picture of Schiehallion and it's shadow cast on the mist over Strahtummel? Having lived in the area for 45 years it seems to me as someone tried to catch a picture of a low level training flight from RAF Leuchars as it flew down Strathtummel.

It has been considered, there was a post on reddit about it (now deleted, though):
Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/ws34wt/

 

[Jam17]

It has been considered, there was a post on reddit about it (now deleted, though):
Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/ws34wt/

Thank you for the link. Not sure about AlternativePlum5151's Hen Harrier theory though. Link from twitter shows the similarity of Schiehallion and the object:
Source: https://twitter.com/riotseeds/status/1558968582637178887?s=21&t=LDB5Yc8zuW79a-6Ecb54uA


I can see why it would look alien to some people, just as the CN tower in cloud would look out of place to those not familiar with it.

 

[NorCal Dave]

Has it been considered that this is a picture of Schiehallion and it's shadow cast on the mist over Strahtummel?

It has been considered, there was a post on reddit about it (now deleted, though):
Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/ws34wt/

Most of that reddit post can still be found on the main Calvine Photo thread. Page 2 post #49, though I don't think there is any mention of Schiehallion or Strahtummel, whatever those are. Mountains or valleys?

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/claim-original-calvine-ufo-photo.12571/page-2

 

[NorCal Dave]

tried to catch a picture of a low level training flight from RAF Leuchars as it flew down Strathtummel.

According to the MoD, there were no Harriers based in Scotland in the early '90s, though some have pointed out it could be a different plane, such as a Hunter. Agin, this is on the main Calvine Photo thread.

 

[deirdre]

I can see why it would look alien to some people

i'm not sure it would look "alien", but that would be some serious freaky fog to literally follow the tree tops of each hill (fog typically lays in layers (flat)).

 

[John J.]

Difficult to know where to put this- I feel it belongs more in the original Calvine thread, but it's in response to NorCal Dave's post here:

According to the MoD, there were no Harriers based in Scotland in the early '90s

That's correct, but arguably irrelevant I think. The UK operated Harriers from 1969 to 2010. Like other forces aircraft, Harriers could be deployed to airfields away from their home station "as and when", and frequently were.

Found a few photos of Harriers operating from RAF Lossiemouth in Scotland, a tad over 70 miles from Calvine


(Left to Right) (1) Harrier GR5, Lossiemouth, no date, incorrectly ID'd as a GR3, (2) Sea Harrier FRS1, Lossiemouth May 1989, (3) Harrier GR5, Lossiemouth, summer 1990. Courtesy of https://www.airport-data.com/ and Alamy, credits with pictures.

"As the crow flies", Lossiemouth to Calvine
(Graphic and distance info from https://www.gps-coordinates.net/distance )

Also found a photo of Sea Harriers on a carrier, location given as "Scotland", 2005- well outside the time of interest, but three light carriers operated Harriers from 1985 to 2005, often in northern waters.

Most RAF Harriers not in Germany or Belize were stationed at RAF Wittering in 1990, near Peterborough, England.
Harriers had a relatively short combat radius with a full bombload, co-incidentally not much more than the Wittering-Calvine distance of 320 miles (Graphic and distance info from https://www.gps-coordinates.net/distance )

Harrier II performance:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Aerospace_Harrier_II (Wikipedia, British Aerospace Harrier II, accessed 23 March 2023)

A less-encumbered Harrier could easily fly to Calvine in less than forty-five minutes, spend some time looking at Christmas decorations hung in trees / reflections in pools / UAPs, and return home. In addition, Harriers could be refuelled in-flight for longer missions; in 1982 several GR3's flew over 4,500 miles from Cornwall, UK to Ascension Island ("A Close Run Thing- The Harrier Deployments to the South Atlantic" by Mike Beer, a page of the defunct Bruntingthorpe Cold War Jets Museum website
http://www.victorxm715.co.uk/a-close-run-thing-the-harrier-deployments-to-the-south-atlantic/ )

So although RAF Harriers were based in Wittering in 1990 (and Royal Navy Harriers in Yeovilton, SW England) they clearly flew in Scotland, and there were no performance reasons why a Wittering-based Harrier couldn't fly to any destination on a gentle arc between the Isle of Mull off the west coast (342.22 miles from RAF Wittering) and Peterhead on the north-east coast (342.5 miles), and return, in well under two hours. (For non-UK Metabunkers: there are no political obstacles either, there aren't separate Scottish or English defence "establishments").

 

[NorCal Dave]

That's correct, but arguably irrelevant I think. The UK operated Harriers from 1969 to 2010. Like other forces aircraft, Harriers could be deployed to airfields away from their home station "as and when", and frequently were.

More specifically from the MoD memo as discussed on the main thread:

So, Harriers were not based in Scotland at the time and the MoD claims they had no record of any Harriers operating in that are of Scotland at the time. I don't think this is a case of "old, forgotten or misplaced" records either, this memo was written only 6 weeks after the event supposedly took place and less than a month since receiving the photos:

It seems a couple of simple phone calls could have established the presence of Harriers. Clark, who thinks the picture is genuine, was also unable to find any records of Harriers in the area, speculating that maybe it was a US craft, a USMC AV8:

If the second aircraft was also a Harrier it could possibly be a US Marine Corps AV-8.

But where did these aircraft originate? Research by Graeme Rendall and others have established there were no Harriers based in mainland Scotland at the time.

This fact is confirmed in a 'defensive briefing' prepared by Hartop or his Head of Division for the MoD's Press Office, copied to Under Secretary of State for the RAF in September 1990 (right).

This says MoD had 'no record of Harriers operating in the location' at the time and place.

The closest he can get is that some Germany based RAF Harriers were training for low-level flying, but there is no record of that happening in Scotland:

This document also mentions the task had 'already [been] discussed with Ops 4 Squadron'. This is significant as No 4 Squadron flew ground attack Harrier jets from RAF Gutersloh in Germany in 1990. Pairs of pilots from squadron were undergoing training for low-flying exercises at the outbreak of the Gulf War.

https://drdavidclarke.co.uk/secret-files/the-calvine-ufo-photographs/

I think that leaves us with a few possibilities:

1. There were Harriers performing a very unusual evening time training run on a Saturday and the MoD failed to identify them. Seems unlikely, as again, the memo was written very close to the time of the event, but incompetence is always a possibility.
2. There were Harriers performing training runs and the MoD identified them but chose to conceal their existence. This would go along with the idea that the planes are escorting a Top-Secret stealth craft. This assumes the craft was being tested over rural Scotland and not at someplace like Groom Lake.
3. The Harriers are actually USMC AV-8 versions, and the MoD knew nothing about them as they were US craft. Seems unlikely, unless they are escorting a US Top Secret Stealth craft in rural Scotland. See above.
4. The date the photo was taken is not when is claimed. In that case maybe the photographer did catch a Harrier training near Calvine at a different time and date. If so, why give the date that was giving? When and where it was photographed has been concealed, so as to add it into a hoaxed photo at a later date.
5. A Harrier, on a different day and maybe in a different area, just happened to fly over a dead-calm pond/puddle and mixed with a reflection of some trees, a fence and triangular rock.
6. The Harrier does not exist as a real jet aircraft in the sky. As shown in the Calvine Photo Hoax theory thread, the Harrier could have been a model, or a simple silhouette drawn on glass. Nobody can find a record of it, because it never was. https://www.metabunk.org/threads/calvine-photo-hoax-theories.12596/

Several people have shown that the photo can be created in camera without an actual Harrier in the sky. In addition, despite what the photo expert claimed, I still think some darkroom compositing is a distinct possibility.

 

[JMartJr]

1. There were Harriers performing a very unusual evening time training run on a Saturday and the MoD failed to identify them. Seems unlikely, as again, the memo was written very close to the time of the event, but incompetence is always a possibility.
2. There were Harriers performing training runs and the MoD identified them but chose to conceal their existence. This would go along with the idea that the planes are escorting a Top-Secret stealth craft. This assumes the craft was being tested over rural Scotland and not at someplace like Groom Lake.
3. The Harriers are actually USMC AV-8 versions, and the MoD knew nothing about them as they were US craft. Seems unlikely, unless they are escorting a US Top Secret Stealth craft in rural Scotland. See above.
4. The date the photo was taken is not when is claimed. In that case maybe the photographer did catch a Harrier training near Calvine at a different time and date. If so, why give the date that was giving? When and where it was photographed has been concealed, so as to add it into a hoaxed photo at a later date.
5. A Harrier, on a different day and maybe in a different area, just happened to fly over a dead-calm pond/puddle and mixed with a reflection of some trees, a fence and triangular rock.
6. The Harrier does not exist as a real jet aircraft in the sky. As shown in the Calvine Photo Hoax theory thread, the Harrier could have been a model, or a simple silhouette drawn on glass. Nobody can find a record of it, because it never was. https://www.metabunk.org/threads/calvine-photo-hoax-theories.12596/

Has "7: It is an aircraft other than a Harrier, possibly a Hunter" been ruled out?

 

[Duke]

More specifically from the MoD memo as discussed on the main thread:

View attachment 58435


So, Harriers were not based in Scotland at the time and the MoD claims they had no record of any Harriers operating in that are of Scotland at the time. I don't think this is a case of "old, forgotten or misplaced" records either, this memo was written only 6 weeks after the event supposedly took place and less than a month since receiving the photos:

View attachment 58436

It seems a couple of simple phone calls could have established the presence of Harriers. Clark, who thinks the picture is genuine, was also unable to find any records of Harriers in the area, speculating that maybe it was a US craft, a USMC AV8:

If the second aircraft was also a Harrier it could possibly be a US Marine Corps AV-8.

But where did these aircraft originate? Research by Graeme Rendall and others have established there were no Harriers based in mainland Scotland at the time.

This fact is confirmed in a 'defensive briefing' prepared by Hartop or his Head of Division for the MoD's Press Office, copied to Under Secretary of State for the RAF in September 1990 (right).

This says MoD had 'no record of Harriers operating in the location' at the time and place.

The closest he can get is that some Germany based RAF Harriers were training for low-level flying, but there is no record of that happening in Scotland:

This document also mentions the task had 'already [been] discussed with Ops 4 Squadron'. This is significant as No 4 Squadron flew ground attack Harrier jets from RAF Gutersloh in Germany in 1990. Pairs of pilots from squadron were undergoing training for low-flying exercises at the outbreak of the Gulf War.

https://drdavidclarke.co.uk/secret-files/the-calvine-ufo-photographs/

I think that leaves us with a few possibilities:

1. There were Harriers performing a very unusual evening time training run on a Saturday and the MoD failed to identify them. Seems unlikely, as again, the memo was written very close to the time of the event, but incompetence is always a possibility.
2. There were Harriers performing training runs and the MoD identified them but chose to conceal their existence. This would go along with the idea that the planes are escorting a Top-Secret stealth craft. This assumes the craft was being tested over rural Scotland and not at someplace like Groom Lake.
3. The Harriers are actually USMC AV-8 versions, and the MoD knew nothing about them as they were US craft. Seems unlikely, unless they are escorting a US Top Secret Stealth craft in rural Scotland. See above.
4. The date the photo was taken is not when is claimed. In that case maybe the photographer did catch a Harrier training near Calvine at a different time and date. If so, why give the date that was giving? When and where it was photographed has been concealed, so as to add it into a hoaxed photo at a later date.
5. A Harrier, on a different day and maybe in a different area, just happened to fly over a dead-calm pond/puddle and mixed with a reflection of some trees, a fence and triangular rock.
6. The Harrier does not exist as a real jet aircraft in the sky. As shown in the Calvine Photo Hoax theory thread, the Harrier could have been a model, or a simple silhouette drawn on glass. Nobody can find a record of it, because it never was. https://www.metabunk.org/threads/calvine-photo-hoax-theories.12596/

Several people have shown that the photo can be created in camera without an actual Harrier in the sky. In addition, despite what the photo expert claimed, I still think some darkroom compositing is a distinct possibility.

As has been discussed previously, I would ask what "records" were reviewed to make that statement. In all likelihood it was the Operations Record Books (ORB) of the operational RAF/RN Harrier squadrons at the time of the event.

Had there been a Harrier (or Harriers) involved in a classified chase/escort mission accompanying a black project air vehicle, it's doubtful such would have been recorded in the ORB. The only way to determine if any operational RAF/RN Harrier was airborne at the time/date in question would be an aircraft-by-aircraft inspection of their individual flight and maintenance logs/records. Such records/documentation cannot be falsified or have flight time omitted as they are used to meet scheduled maintenance compliance and flight safety requirements.

There is another consideration I've wondered about after the last series of Calvine posts referencing "privately owned" Harriers a few weeks back. It's possible Harriers were employed by non-operational* R&D and test organizations such as the Empire Test Pilots' School (Boscombe Down) or the Royal Aerospace Establishment (Farnborough). (*The a/c on strength at these type organizations are "non operational" in that they are delegated to/designated for research/test, not for operational combat duties.)

While such a/c would have still been owned by the RAF or RN, they would have been under the control of these non-operational organizations. In that case, such Harriers could have been overlooked (purposely?) when a records search determined there were no of Harriers "operating in the area" at the time the photos were taken.

 

[Jam17]

i'm not sure it would look "alien", but that would be some serious freaky fog to literally follow the tree tops of each hill (fog typically lays in layers (flat)).
View attachment 58423

View attachment 58424

View attachment 58425

I get what you're saying but Schiehallion is higher than the surrounding corbets and the only picture we've seen of the "UFO" was cropped and could have shown the other Munro's above the mist to the right of the picture. I've attached a picture of Schiehallion in the mist by Chris Bowness (https://chrisbowness.com/blog/2016/11/coddiwomple) which might give you a better idea of the Cairngorms eco system.

 

[Jam17]

Most of that reddit post can still be found on the main Calvine Photo thread. Page 2 post #49, though I don't think there is any mention of Schiehallion or Strahtummel, whatever those are. Mountains or valleys?

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/claim-original-calvine-ufo-photo.12571/page-2

Thank you, I did find the associated posts too. Yes you are correct in that order, a mountain and valley.

 

[John J.]

I've posted on the "Original Calvine UFO Photo" thread regarding the "Harrier presence denied by MoD" thing

This post continues a discussion on the "Calvine UFO Photo- Reflection In Water Hypothesis" thread, here
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/ca...in-water-hypothesis.12572/page-14#post-288773;
I'm posting here because I'd like to continue that particular discussion, but it isn't directly relevant to the "reflection in water" thread.

It kind of follows on from NorCal Dave's post here

More specifically from the MoD memo as discussed on the main thread:

...but I couldn't really claim my musings are anything to do with the "Reflection in Water Hypothesis".

And so I came here to post this... and saw Duke's post

There is another consideration I've wondered about after the last series of Calvine posts referencing "privately owned" Harriers a few weeks back. It's possible Harriers were employed by non-operational* R&D and test organizations such as the Empire Test Pilots' School (Boscombe Down) or the Royal Aerospace Establishment (Farnborough).

I've been thinking along similar lines.
As Duke points out, UK Ministry of Defence agencies outside of RAF/ Fleet Air Arm/ Army Air Corps structures flew military aircraft in 1990:
Royal Aerospace [formerly Aircraft] Establishment (RAE),
Aeroplane and Armament Experimental Establishment (A&AEE),
and Empire Test Pilots' School (ETPS).

RAE helped develop Harrier and Concorde, and had an important role developing carbon fibre in 1963.
RAE had at least one Harrier, XW175, which had an impressive career, 1969-2009, as a trials and experimental aircraft, outliving some of the agencies flying her (RAE-> DRA-> DERA-> QinetiQ).



(B&W picture and info from 1000aircraftphotos.com, Johaan Visschedijk
https://1000aircraftphotos.com/Contributions/Visschedijk/6364.htm)

A&AEE at Boscombe Down had examples of many UK service aircraft plus some other types. Its successor organisation (the privatised company QinetiQ) owns a much more modest fleet, but its Boscombe Down facility continues to host diverse military aircraft.
A&AEE Harrier in 1990 (https://www.aviationphotocompany.com/p1034206641, page 33)- the right timeframe for "Calvine":

-and a T12A "...on approach to Boscombe Down", in test markings, probably later than 1990. Annoyingly, don't know where I found it; all credit to original poster

-Incidentally, supposedly a secret US stealth aircraft crashed at Boscombe Down in September 1994
"Secret US spyplane crash may be kept under wraps", Christopher Bellamy, Timothy Walker, The Independent 14 March 1997
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/secret-us-spyplane-crash-may-be-kept-under-wraps-1272714.html
Not sure what to make of this, but it probably demonstrates that the MoD doesn't always tell the whole truth about aircraft movements even when asked.

The Empire Test Pilots' School has operated a wide variety of aircraft, I've found photos of ETPS Tornados from around 1990 and they operated several Hunters over the years, though I haven't found any pictures of an ETPS Harrier yet- you'd think that a Harrier would be irresistible to a test pilot! Interestingly, ETPS currently operates at least one Saab Gripen, with Swedish "Triple Crown" roundels and ETPS tailfin livery, in neutral Sweden.

Despite its anachronistic name, the Empire Test Pilots' School has hosted 4 US and 7 European astronauts- I think it would be a good setting for a Thriller! (Or a conspiracy theory...)
(Wikipedia, "Empire Test Pilots' School", accessed 25/03/23: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_Test_Pilots'_School)

British Aerospace (BAe, succeeded by BAe Systems in 1999) test-flies aircraft, they own some but I don't know on what basis.
(Military aircraft operated by MoD agencies and approved contractors such as BAe Systems and QinetiQ bear military registrations).
Did find pic of a BAe Harrier which was titled "Harrier out of BAe Warton over Lake District", Warton being a major BAe Systems facility. All credit to the photographer, Chris Chambers.

 

[Mauro]

Has "7: It is an aircraft other than a Harrier, possibly a Hunter" been ruled out?

I would add:

Has 8: "it's not an aircraft" been ruled out?

 

[Ann K]

I would add:

Has 8: "it's not an aircraft" been ruled out?

It's already been speculated that it's a fake aircraft on a string, or perhaps a person in a rowboat (with the thing that looks like a light-colored wing actually being ripples because the oar is in the water) somewhere in these long threads. I don't recall if a bird has been mentioned. And it's in the low information zone, being the smallest item in a somewhat blurry photo. Your question seems to be getting no closer to a definitive answer, I fear.

 

[Duke]

Has "7: It is an aircraft other than a Harrier, possibly a Hunter" been ruled out?

This previously posted (see #542 above) MoD memo, in the sentence prior to the yellow highlighted bit above, clearly states the "relevant staffs" established the jet in the photo is a Harrier. So unless they are wrong (unlikely) or not being truthful (possible, but why?), I think the identity of the a/c as a Harrier is a given.

 

[Mauro]

View attachment 58459

This previously posted (see #542 above) MoD memo, in the sentence prior to the yellow highlighted bit above, clearly states the "relevant staffs" established the jet in the photo is a Harrier. So unless they are wrong (unlikely) or not being truthful (possible, but why?), I think the identity of the a/c as a Harrier is a given.

Ahhh well, if they state that a vague blob in a vague photograph is a Harrier, even if there were no Harriers in the area as they say in the following sentence, then it must surely be... They also say the photo shows "a large stationary diamond-shaped object", should we take that as a given too?

What the photo shows is an unrecognizable fuzzy shape which could be just anything (a scenic prop included).

 

[Mauro]

It's already been speculated that it's a fake aircraft on a string, or perhaps a person in a rowboat (with the thing that looks like a light-colored wing actually being ripples because the oar is in the water) somewhere in these long threads. I don't recall if a bird has been mentioned. And it's in the low information zone, being the smallest item in a somewhat blurry photo. Your question seems to be getting no closer to a definitive answer, I fear.

Getting closer to a definitive answer was not the aim of my post of course, it rather was to caution people not to take as a given that it's an Harrier or even an aircraft. It could be anything.

 

[deirdre]

I get what you're saying but Schiehallion is higher than the surrounding corbets and the only picture we've seen of the "UFO" was cropped and could have shown the other Munro's above the mist to the right of the picture.

Munros??

the UFO has a pointy bottom, the pic you linked is suggesting the fog is covering those particular mountains fully..making the triangular shape at bottom of ufo. i dont think its possible. heres a closer view of that mountain area (with a better fence match i think personally)
your twitter theory is suggesting these two angles [pink] make the ufo bottom, right? i dont see how that can happen with fog.

plus the [blue arrow] bump on the mountain is different than the ufo..unless the phtoographer photoshopped all the fog in,then yea he could have evened out the top a bit too.

 

[Ann K]

Munros??

A Munro is a mountain in Scotland over 3000 feet, while a Corbett is one over 2500 feet but under 3000. Mountaineering is a popular sport in Scotland, and they have long been classified by those terms, named a century or so ago after prominent mountaineers. Those who have climbed ALL the Munros are justly proud of that claim.

I agree with you about the unlikelihood of a cloud cutting off the base in a diamond shape, but the suggestion was about a mountain peak and its shadow on a level cloud deck, giving a diamond much as one might see from an islet and its reflection in water.

 

[Duke]

Ahhh well, if they state that a vague blob in a vague photograph is a Harrier, even if there were no Harriers in the area as they say in the following sentence, then it must surely be... They also say the photo shows "a large stationary diamond-shaped object", should we take that as a given too?

What the photo shows is an unrecognizable fuzzy shape which could be just anything (a scenic prop included).

Can you show us any RAF/MoD/HMG document that says "there were no Harriers in the area...." as you stated above? I've seen statements there were no Harriers stationed/based in the area, and that there is (was) no record of Harriers operating in the area, but nothing stating categorically there were no Harriers as you claim.

@John J. did a fine job explaining why Harriers not being based in the area is irrelevant, and I explained why not all records/record checks are created equal. I further explained (and @John J. concurred) how RAF/RN Harriers seconded to non-operational MoD research/test organizations like the RAE or ETPS would likely have been outside the scope of whatever records' review was conducted after the event per the memo.

I am curious how you would describe the image of the object in the photo(s) if you have a problem with the memo's

large stationary diamond-shaped object

description?

 

[deirdre]

about a mountain peak and its shadow on a level cloud deck

oh! that didnt register to me in the comment. i thought he meant the peak was in shadow. has anyone given an example of another mountain peak casting such a shadow?

(if it's a shadow it could be almost any peak, esp since Schiehallion isnt a super great match.)

 

[Jam17]

Munros??

the UFO has a pointy bottom, the pic you linked is suggesting the fog is covering those particular mountains fully..making the triangular shape at bottom of ufo. i dont think its possible. heres a closer view of that mountain area (with a better fence match i think personally)
your twitter theory is suggesting these two angles [pink] make the ufo bottom, right? i dont see how that can happen with fog.

plus the [blue arrow] bump on the mountain is different than the ufo..unless the phtoographer photoshopped all the fog in,then yea he could have evened out the top a bit too.
View attachment 58461

View attachment 58462

The pointy bit is shadow as explained in my original post "Schiehallion and it's shadow cast on the mist".

You are correct in thinking that the photo is taken nearer to Schiehallion than shown in the twitter post.

 

[Jam17]

oh! that didnt register to me in the comment. i thought he meant the peak was in shadow. has anyone given an example of another mountain peak casting such a shadow?

(if it's a shadow it could be almost any peak, esp since Schiehallion isnt a super great match.)

There's a shadow cast by a mountain.

The ridges are a give away although you'd need to rotate her maybe 10 to 15 degrees anti clockwise and come a little lower down beinn a'chuallaich to get a super great match to the grainy original.

The jet is in the location of the red marker and the photo is taken in the direction of the blue arrow further down beinn a'chuallaich (hill to the north).

The dyke and fence on the left are likely the ones in the original Calvine photo, but the picture would be taken from behind the trees in the distance.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@56.7...ErPXcW7AMjhmVVXq2A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e4

You can follow the dyke west along the side of the hill from this point. https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@56.7167962,-4.1363139,180m/data=!3m1!1e3!5m1!1e4

 

[Mauro]

Can you show us any RAF/MoD/HMG document that says "there were no Harriers in the area...." as you stated above? I've seen statements there were no Harriers stationed/based in the area, and that there is (was) no record of Harriers operating in the area, but nothing stating categorically there were no Harriers as you claim.

A fine distinction indeed, but it does not help the Harrier hypothesis. This because you need to add another hypothesis to explain the MoD report: ie. the MoD is lying on the existence of records (but not in the rest of the report), or the MoD is unaware of Harriers flying over Scotland (really?), or any other reason one can come up with. But whatever hypothesis you choose you need to add one, and every ad hoc hypothesis has a probability going with it which automatically reduces the probability of the original hypothesis being true,

Example: suppose the probability of MoD lying/deceiving on the existence of records, but not in the rest of the report, is 50%: just for this the probability of the Harrier hypothesis being true is automatically halved.

I am curious how you would describe the image of the object in the photo(s) if you have a problem with the memo's

description?

The MoD report says: 'a large stationary diamond-shaped object past which, it appears, a small jet aircraft is flying'.

It can even be factually true! It appears a small jet aircraft is flying past the object (but it was not), then there is no reason to think the large stationary object is in the sky, then the large stationary object is on the ground (where that kind of objects usually are), then the lower part is a reflection (because large diamond-shaped stationary objects do not stand upright on a vertex), or alternatively the whole thing is a hoax.

Anyway, this is my description: the photograph shows a badly underexposed fence in the foreground, a featurless overexposed background with an unidentifiable diamond shape in the middle, and an unidentifiable blur above the fence in the lower right.

 

[Ann K]

has anyone given an example of another mountain peak casting such a shadow?

Here's one I found. Although it's an irregular peak on an irregular bank of fog, you get the idea.