Calvine UFO Photo - Reflection In Water Hypothesis

[deirdre]

There's a shadow cast by a mountain.

no.

i dont understand what the other stuff you're saying means.

(edit add: i do get the general concept now, but i think if a shadow was cast it would have to be at least elongated. shadows are longer than the object in setting sun.

Here's one I found. Although it's an irregular peak on an irregular bank of fog, you get the idea.View attachment 58472

yea that kinda works for a valley area. shape wise.

but it's not a shadow as suggested.

 

[deirdre]

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

just for the record i'm not thinking that, i'm just going by the location being theorized on. I'm not particularly convinced of the location in general..

 

[Duke]

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,

The MoD memo states there was "no record" of Harriers operating in the area. Might be true, but since we don't know what records were reviewed or to what level of detail, we don't know if that's true or not. That's not accusing anyone of lying about the existence of records, it's asking what data was reviewed to support the statement made in an official, FOIA discoverable document.

What I do know, however, is if there were RAF/RN/MoD Harriers operating over the UK at the date/time of the event, the individual a/c flight and maintenance records would show it. The safety of flight crew literally depends on individual aircraft records to be precise and up to date. Since the Harriers were retired from service in the UK over a decade ago, it's doubtful they still exist.

Btw, I'm not accusing them, but I have no doubt the Brits (or any other government) would lie to or deceive the public to maintain secrecy in a highly classified program. We certainly did it with black USAF aircraft flying out classified sites back in the late 80s/90s when I was in that business.

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 never said the RAF/MoD lied or were deceptive on the existence of records, just that we don't know what records were reviewed.

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.

So since you don't believe there is an object in the sky, any description would be unacceptable for you?

 

[Ann K]

but i think if a shadow was cast it would have to be at least elongated. shadows are longer than the object.

No, that depends on the time of day. They're elongated when the sun is low in the sky, while at noon there's very little shadow. I know, we've been told that the Calvine photograph was taken in the evening, so any cast shadow should be longer, but it looks in the photo as if there are no distinct cast shadows because the sky (or sky reflection) is completely overcast.

While the cloud shadow idea is interesting, I still lean toward the reflection hypothesis.

 

[deirdre]

They're elongated when the sun is low in the sky

sorry, i did edit my original comment when realizing people might not know it's allegedly "evening'

While the cloud shadow idea is interesting,

it is, except shadows are also black.
although ....if we don't believe the photographer when he says 'evening' or '(paraphrased) the object shot up into the sky', then not sure why we have any reason to believe the location either.

 

[Mauro]

The MoD memo states there was "no record" of Harriers operating in the area. Might be true, but since we don't know what records were reviewed or to what level of detail, we don't know if that's true or not. That's not accusing anyone of lying about the existence of records, it's asking what data was reviewed to support the statement made in an official, FOIA discoverable document.

What I do know, however, is if there were RAF/RN/MoD Harriers operating over the UK at the date/time of the event, the individual a/c flight and maintenance records would show it. The safety of flight crew literally depends on individual aircraft records to be precise and up to date. Since the Harriers were retired from service in the UK over a decade ago, it's doubtful they still exist.

Btw, I'm not accusing them, but I have no doubt the Brits (or any other government) would lie to or deceive the public to maintain secrecy in a highly classified program. We certainly did it with black USAF aircraft flying out classified sites back in the late 80s/90s when I was in that business.


I never said the RAF/MoD lied or were deceptive on the existence of records, just that we don't know what records were reviewed.

You missed the point: if it's factually true 'it was a Harrier' then 'there are no record of Harriers operating there' is not an expected occurrence (because military flights are recorded, even when they are secret) and you need to add an ad hoc hypothesis to explain this away, which by itself diminishes the probability of the Harrier hypothesis being true in the first place.

Instead the MoD report is not a problem for me: the identification of a jet aircraft and more specifically a Harrier as the blur in the photo has been pulled out of thin air (100% probability: as anyone can see the blur is just a blur and could be anything, see also pareidolia) and there being no records of a Harrier if none was there is 100% expected.

So since you don't believe there is an object in the sky, any description would be unacceptable for you?

Uh? I gave you my description, which is obviously perfectly acceptable to me and has nothing to do with me believing or not in objects in the sky (I don't even mention 'objects' nor 'sky'):

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.

 

[JMartJr]

No, that depends on the time of day. They're elongated when the sun is low in the sky, while at noon there's very little shadow.

But the visible shadow would be shortened if it was cast on a horizontal surface at about your level... foreshortening, right?

 

[John J.]

I'd guess that most Metabunkers here are familiar with the "Calvine Photo Hoax Theories" thread,
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/calvine-photo-hoax-theories.12596/page-5,
it's worth a quick read if you've not visited it.

NorCal Dave poste this, a hoax photo from Puerto Rico

Top to bottom, Puerto Rico hoax, Calvine and unknown 1994 photo from Wendell Steven's collection:

...and Mick West posted this, a demonstration by Wim van Utrecht of how a Calvine-type photo can be made with relatively little effort. The "UFO" is a star-shaped Christmas decoration of a type which Mr van Utrecht believes was used in the original Calvine photo, suspended on some fishing line- the aeroplane is a small toy/ model similarly strung up:

Wim van Utrecht updated his Christmas ornament recreation, PDF attached.

Mick West's post has a pdf attached (definitely worth looking at) in which Wim shows how he manufactured the above image.
It's a good match, without any reflections in water involved! -Complete with little bobbly-bit on the right side of the diamond.

Of course, re-staging a photo like this by no means guarantees that the original photo was produced in the same way (nor does it prove that the original is a fake), but I think it could be taken as an indication as to how the Calvine photo might have been made.

I think that the idea of the Calvine "UFO" being a reflection of something in water (or a mountain-top above dense fog) is interesting, but it isn't required in order to account for the original image- if anything, I think the amount of planning and skill- or pure good luck- which would have to be involved in using a reflection in water as a basis for a Calvine-type image makes this a rather less-likely explanation than Wim van Utrecht's "I hung a Christmas bauble from a tree" methodology. The reflection hypothesis is more complex than is necessary to account for the Calvine photo.

As for the Harrier or whatever it is- and it might well be a representation of a Harrier or something similar (like Wim's jet),

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 still don't think the presence or absence of that aircraft in itself debunks the photo (which I firmly believe is a fake) unless (1) we can demonstrate that the plane in the image is itself faked or (2) we can definitively rule out the presence of a Harrier at the time the picture was taken, which we probably can't do. The MoD isn't obliged to be transparent about all fighter activity.
There either is a real aircraft in the photo or there isn't- it's binary. Freeman Dyson and Arthur C. Clarke were in the RAF but I don't think Erwin Schrodinger was.
On the original CaIvine thread I posted a clear picture of a Harrier at Lossiemouth, just under 71 miles north of Calvine, taken 12/07/90- just 23 days before the date given for the Calvine photo, so we know Harriers operated in the area around this time.

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

I downloaded the National Archive records on the incident.

Note, "...have established...", not "...think that...".
The reference to a second aircraft implies that either the MoD had a much better quality version of the photo than we have, or the "lost" photos have clearer detail- maybe why the "relevant staffs" can be confident of their identification of a Harrier.
From the same source (for which we must thank Metabunker jackfrostvc),

Incidentally, why "Defensive Lines To Take"? It seems the "official version" strongly implies that the given time/date is wrong (or a falsehood), but why are these conclusions, for public consumption, "Defensive Lines"? (Cue X-Files theme... )

 

[John J.]

if it's factually true 'it was a Harrier' then 'there are no record of Harriers operating there' is not an expected occurrence (because military flights are recorded, even when they are secret) and you need to add an ad hoc hypothesis

If a military flight is secret, you don't reveal it in your response to a local tabloid asking about flying saucers. That's as ad hoc as your hypothesis need be. Or maybe the chefs (or whatever) got their dates wrong.
Again, the presence or not of a (real) aircraft in the Calvine photo is binary, it is not probabilistic. We can, arguably, come up with some algorithm that might inform our decisions on a probabilistic basis if we had sufficient information, which I think is debatable in this case.

the identification of a jet aircraft and more specifically a Harrier as the blur in the photo has been pulled out of thin air (100% probability: as anyone can see the blur is just a blur and could be anything, see also pareidolia)

(My emphasis). That is an assertion- three assertions actually- that I politely disagree with, one of which you have ascribed a 100% probability to.

pulled out of thin air (100% probability

You have access to all the original Calvine photos? You have inside knowledge of how RAF air staff came to their conclusions? Please share.

as anyone can see

As soon as I saw a picture of the Calvine photo, I thought "That looks like a Harrier in the distance." There's a 100% probability that you're over-generalising.

blur is just a blur and could be anything

I see a roughly cruciform shape, longer in its near-horizontal axis, its upward and downward projections appear to be "swept" towards the right; they appear broader where they meet the horizontal structure, less broad distally, giving an impression of rough triangles- perhaps the upward projection more clearly so. There is a smaller upward projection at the right end of the horizontal body, again roughly triangular, broader where it meets the horizontal structure and narrowing distally, the left side is angled upwards and to the left, the right side almost vertical. The horizontal body is stouter immediately to the left of the upward and downward projections than it is to the right, although it appears to narrow towards the left.

The apparent features and their relative proportions are, to me, suggestive of a combat jet. And it's in the sky.

pareidolia

 

[JMartJr]

The apparent features and their relative proportions are, to me, suggestive of a combat jet.

Indeed, but they are also blurry and indistinct and open to other interpretations. I don't see ANYTHING diagnostic to the level of a specific plane. I also see the rowboat then looking at it with that in mind. I also see a bird when I put on my "What else it might be" hat. But yeah, there are apparent features consistent with a plane, whether real plane or replica.

And it's in the sky.

Unless it is in a pond. Or on a string. Or in a darkroom... I think there is a potential trap there, of falling into some circular reasoning: It looks like a plane so it must be in the sky, and being in the sky it must be a plane, etc.

For what it is worth I have not yet seen anything to move me off of "things on strings," as the simplest way to take such a picture, requiring the fewest leaps of faith or advanced unknown technologies. To me then, that is the preferred but as yet not proven solution.

 

[Mauro]

You have access to all the original Calvine photos? You have inside knowledge of how RAF air staff came to their conclusions? Please share.

Do you? Do you know how many they were (if ever there was more than one)? Do you know what they show? You can't argue from data you don't have.

As soon as I saw a picture of the Calvine photo, I thought "That looks like a Harrier in the distance." There's a 100% probability that you're over-generalising.

I see a roughly cruciform shape, longer in its near-horizontal axis, its upward and downward projections appear to be "swept" towards the right; they appear broader where they meet the horizontal structure, less broad distally, giving an impression of rough triangles- perhaps the upward projection more clearly so. There is a smaller upward projection at the right end of the horizontal body, again roughly triangular, broader where it meets the horizontal structure and narrowing distally, the left side is angled upwards and to the left, the right side almost vertical. The horizontal body is stouter immediately to the left of the upward and downward projections than it is to the right, although it appears to narrow towards the left.

The apparent features and their relative proportions are, to me, suggestive of a combat jet.

"Suggestive" is one thing, "surely" a combat jet is another thing. Just to choose one famous example in myriads of possible ones:

I see two oval black shapes on the same line, giving the impression of human eyes, with a protrusion below them at 90 degrees, strongly suggesting a nose, confirmed by a visible nostril. Below the putative nose a fissure-like line resembles a human mouth, where I seem to discern also the lips and a chin below. A lighter stripe weaving around the central features looks like hairs. The apparent features and their relative proportions are, to me, suggestive of a human face (and I'm not kidding! They really do and I dare anybody to say they don't!). But is this a picture of a human face sculpted on a rock formation on Mars? Not at all, it's just a picture of a typical and boring rock formation taken just with the exact light and environmental conditions and the right defects (noise and defocusing in this case, bad exposure in the Calvine photo) to make it trick our brain in seeing a face where there are none (say a diamond-shaped object in the sky and a jet aircraft, in the Calvine case).

And it's in the sky.

It's on a background so much overexposed to have become featurless and white. It may be the sky (which would support identically both a real Harrier and a @NorCal Dave-style hoax) or it may be anything uniform enough and reflecting much more light than the unlit fence, including a water surface (which would support sheer luck in taking a great picture, plus some deception afterwards) or fog, or even a mirror reflecting the sky (for a different way of staging a hoax), or who knows what.

Assuming in principle "it's in the sky" is a strong hypothesis which cuts off a sizable chunk of the solution space, as such, it should not be taken lightheartedly nor exclusively, imho. Assuming in principle "it's a jet aircraft/Harrier" is an even stronger hypothesis and should be treated with even greater caution. Keep an open mind, don't fence yourself in.

 

[John J.]

You can't argue from data you don't have.

We have the data that (presumably) suitably qualified people, in possession of multiple "original" photos, identified the aircraft as a Harrier (and a second aircraft, not in "our" photo, as "probably a Harrier").
Again,

(and from the same source, "- Confident that jet aircraft is a Harrier").
-From (UK) National Archives ref. DEFE 24/1940/1, usefully posted here

I downloaded the National Archive records on the incident.

IIRC the resolution of film (as in pre-digital) photographs was often substantially higher than the resolution of most digital images (or our screens). "Zooming in" on the Calvine image on a PC effectively pixelates it; examination of 'analogue' photos with a lens doesn't have that problem and can reveal more information. (Disclaimer: I know next to nothing about photography!)
Of course pareidolia is a real phenomenon and might help explain many reports of strange sightings, but I think we should be careful in invoking pareidolia to explain images of essentially mundane things (a Harrier or similar craft in a low-fly area might be dramatic, but it's hardly supernatural or even unexpected).
The nature of the Cydonia "face" was made more apparent by better photos; it's not unreasonable to suggest that the photos/ negatives, and investigatory devices, available to UK Air Staff might have revealed more than is evident to us with our scanned, digitised picture.

Do you know how many they were (if ever there was more than one)?

(Link as above).
...Plus the Fortean Times No. 423 (Diamond Publishing, London) October 2022 article "UFO Cover-Up At Calvine" by David Clarke, which the former RAF press officer Craig Lindsay appears to have co-operated with, states that Lindsay saw and dealt with multiple photos/ negatives.


I'm not at all persuaded of pareidolia as an explanation for what looks like a jet.
I think it improbable that the Calvine picture that we have shows a UFO and, coincidentally, a material object/ 'conjunction' of objects (e.g. a distant flock of birds), lens-smear or film artefact that resembles an aircraft.
And that this extraordinary example of pareidolia was, by coincidence, captured in a designated low-fly training area, at a time when Harriers were the second-most numerous type in UK service (after Tornado), at a time when crews of both types trained, intensively, for low-level attack.

The same applies if the image is a reflection- that, while faking a picture of a UFO, or taking a picture of a reflected object that someone later thought could be presented as a picture of a UFO, coincidentally or serendipitously the photographer captured an object/ objects on or near the water's surface, or a reflection on the surface, that by chance alone resembles a fighter jet!

Rather more likely, I think, that the Calvine photograph shows a real aircraft, or a representation (model) of an aircraft deliberately used in the production of a hoax photo. It looks like a jet either because it is a jet, or it's meant to look like a jet.

For what it is worth I have not yet seen anything to move me off of "things on strings," as the simplest way to take such a picture, requiring the fewest leaps of faith or advanced unknown technologies.

I agree. I strongly suspect that the UFO is a thing on a string, as demonstrated by Wim van Utrecht. The 'plane might be a 'plane or a thing on a string.
Not convinced we need to employ reflections or perceptual phenomenon to seriously question the authenticity of the Calvine photo.

 

[Duke]

You missed the point: if it's factually true 'it was a Harrier' then 'there are no record of Harriers operating there' is not an expected occurrence (because military flights are recorded, even when they are secret) and you need to add an ad hoc hypothesis to explain this away, which by itself diminishes the probability of the Harrier hypothesis being true in the first place.

What are the RAF/MoD documents where secret flights are recorded? Document names/form numbers will be fine. More importantly, I'd be curious whether they fall under the bailiwick of ops or maintenance?

Instead the MoD report is not a problem for me: the identification of a jet aircraft and more specifically a Harrier as the blur in the photo has been pulled out of thin air (100% probability: as anyone can see the blur is just a blur and could be anything, see also pareidolia) and there being no records of a Harrier if none was there is 100% expected.

I'll simply echo @john J's comments about the RAF/MoD determining the a/c in the photo is a Harrier. I'm convinced the RAF can identify one of their own aircraft. Whether that Harrier photo was taken at the time/place claimed, I can't say. I would be very interested in seeing the documents/records that were reviewed to come to the conclusion there were no Harriers in the area.

Uh? I gave you my description, which is obviously perfectly acceptable to me and has nothing to do with me believing or not in objects in the sky (I don't even mention 'objects' nor 'sky'):

OK, I think.

 

[Ann K]

I'm convinced the RAF can identify one of their own aircraft.

I'd like to think so, but since American generals didn't even recognize bokeh and mistook stars for triangular UFOs, my belief in their ability falls short of being convinced. If they went in there with the preconceived idea that they were identifying an aircraft, that's the best fit they came up with. But I doubt they were asked about identifying a rowboat, or birds.

 

[Duke]

I'd like to think so, but since American generals didn't even recognize bokeh and mistook stars for triangular UFOs, my belief in their ability falls short of being convinced. If they went in there with the preconceived idea that they were identifying an aircraft, that's the best fit they came up with. But I doubt they were asked about identifying a rowboat, or birds.

Not really a fair comparison. Everything is a function of experience, background, and education. Would it surprise me anyone, including a GO, with no experience/background in photographic analysis or education in astronomy may have misinterrupted bokeh or stars? Nope.

Conversely, would it surprise me a world class photographer or internationally renowned astronomer with no experience/background/education in military aviation could identify miltary aircraft by type in a photograph? Nope.

 

[John J.]

But I doubt they were asked about identifying a rowboat, or birds

They positively identified a Harrier, and tentatively identified a second Harrier.
Now, supposition on my part, but I suspect that if you had asked Int. or RAF personnel what type of rowboat was in the picture, they'd say "That looks like a Harrier", and as the door shut behind you, you might hear some laughter. And/ or swearing.

Unless I'm missing something in "our" Calvine photo, there is only one Harrier (or model of a Harrier).
Meaning, at least one of the RAF photos had significant differences to ours, or the original of "our" (digitised) picture surrendered much more detail on examination than is available to us.
Remember, Craig Lindsay kept a "...print of the "best image" of the UFO, (Fortean Times 423, October 2022), not necessarily the best picture of the putative aircraft- whereas the RAF received all photos which, if even minimally credible, would have shown the jet in different locations (and possibly in slightly different orientations).

Admittedly I can't rule out that there were two guys in rowing boats that looked like Harriers, fortuitously captured on film while a UFO photo was being faked, or, if we consider pareidolia, two subsets of visual stimuli that both look like Harriers.

 

[Mauro]

I'd like to think so, but since American generals didn't even recognize bokeh and mistook stars for triangular UFOs, my belief in their ability falls short of being convinced. If they went in there with the preconceived idea that they were identifying an aircraft, that's the best fit they came up with. But I doubt they were asked about identifying a rowboat, or birds.

You nicely summed up what would have taken me a long post to say

 

[Mendel]

If you ask people trained in identifying military aircraft, they're going to see a military aircraft.
Hammer -> nail.

That said, they saw 6 photos, we only see one, so their information input may have been better than ours. (For example, one of the six pictures might leave no doubt that the aircraft shape is in the sky, which would immediately rule out the rowboat reflection idea.)

 

[John J.]

If you ask people trained in identifying military aircraft, they're going to see a military aircraft.

I could be wrong about this, and am happy to be corrected (er, hypothetically!)...
...but I think the vast majority of the imagery that RAF photo-analysts have to study is of the ground.

I'd guess the QRA (UK air defence) aircraft, and in 1990, the odd lucky Sea Harrier, had a remit to photograph any aircraft they "intercepted", and the RAF intel guys/ women, being air force types, probably pored over those images with loving devotion.

But the RAF's photo reconnaissance capabilities were otherwise all ground-focussed. All the major tactical types at that time (Tornado, Harrier, Jaguar, Buccaneer) had ground reconnaissance variants or could carry reconnaissance payloads. In addition a handful of adapted Lynx helos and Islander aircraft performed reconnaissance in Northern Ireland.

Of necessity, e.g. tactical recce of Warsaw Pact forces in DDR from West German airspace, much of the imagery would have been taken from an oblique angle, and sometimes in challenging weather conditions, or when land is inundated or snow-covered. It's a fair bet that there were more rowing boats and flocks of starlings in the former DDR than there were dispersed jets (or missile launchers, for that matter).
It wouldn't do to allocate thinly-stretched NATO assets to attack rowing boats, with the loss of aircrew in the event of war.

I'm sure mistakes happened (and do happen), but RAF analysts are aware that their work has important consequences. They are used to working with ambiguous or non-optimal imagery, and evaluating imagery from unreliable sources.
Incidentally- and I'm afraid that this will have to remain anecdotal- HM forces are aware of the role psychological factors play in interpreting information.

 

[Mendel]

the vast majority of the imagery that RAF photo-analysts have to study is of the ground
[...]
I'm sure mistakes happened (and do happen), but RAF analysts are aware that their work has important consequences. They are used to working with ambiguous or non-optimal imagery, and evaluating imagery from unreliable sources.

do we have a source that these were the "relevant staffs" that were consulted?

 

[Duke]

do we have a source that these were the "relevant staffs" that were consulted?

Hey @John J., when you talk to RAF/MoD to have them pull the staff summary package to show exactly who was consulted and established/signed off on that being a Harrier, would you also please ask them to provide us a table top on the process used/documents reviewed to determine there were no Harriers operating in the area at time/date/place the event was said to have occurred?

 

[JMartJr]

It is worth remembering that relevant staff can sometimes be wrong and can misidentify or fail to identify, what is going on in imagery. Examples would include the bokeh of stars being identified as drones hovering 700 feet above the USS Russell, or the Chilean Navy ufo which was deemed unidentifiable ("We don't know what it is, but we know what it isn't").

Of course, sometimes the experts are right -- I'd go with "usually." But not always, and closing a line of questioning because experts have spoken may be premature, particularly when we don't know who they were, or what they based their ruling on, as is the case with the Harrier identification in the Clavine picture(s).

USS Russell and Chilean Navy cases are discussed in detail:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/pyramid-ufos-in-night-vision-footage-are-bokeh.11695/
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/ex...ntrails-flight-ib6830.8306/page-5#post-286437

 

[Duke]

It is worth remembering that relevant staff can sometimes be wrong and can misidentify or fail to identify, what is going on in imagery. Examples would include the bokeh of stars being identified as drones hovering 700 feet above the USS Russell, or the Chilean Navy ufo which was deemed unidentifiable ("We don't know what it is, but we know what it isn't").

Of course, sometimes the experts are right -- I'd go with "usually." But not always, and closing a line of questioning because experts have spoken may be premature, particularly when we don't know who they were, or what they based their ruling on, as is the case with the Harrier identification in the Clavine picture(s).

USS Russell and Chilean Navy cases are discussed in detail:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/pyramid-ufos-in-night-vision-footage-are-bokeh.11695/
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/ex...ntrails-flight-ib6830.8306/page-5#post-286437

You mean like the data/records that were reviewed and determined there were no Harriers in area at the time of the event?

 

[JMartJr]

You mean like the data/records that were reviewed and determined there were no Harriers in area at the time of the event?

Did they determine that? Or has it only been determined that the British miltary didn't have any in the area at the time? (Or have we nailed down that other contractor-operated Harriers or foreign operated Harriers were also not there?* If so, I missed that...)
But I was thinking more about the identification of the thing in the picture as a Harrier. If the other pics were generally of the same quality as this one, I'm not sure how that level of identification would be possible.

But maybe the other photos were better, or showed the plane better at least. More importantly, of course, my not understanding how it could be done is not compelling evidence -- there are lots of things that are true that I don't understand.

But if all we have on the identification of the plane is that somebody who was an authority, but we don't know who, came to that conclusion but we don't know what information led to that conclusion, then I think we have to keep the question open at least a little bit. It might well be a valid determination. But I don't think WE know that yet.

*I'd regard the last as pretty unlikely, unless the world is a lot more like a John Clancy novel than I think it is...

 

[John J.]

Sort of a reply to posts between 06:40 and 18:14 BST today from Mendel, Duke, and JMartJr.

Again, posted by jackfrostvc on the main Calvine thread, National Archives' reference DEFE 24/1940/1:

Please note, US of S(AF) is Under-Secretary of State (Armed Forces).
In terms of UK Government they are not Cabinet members (the most senior) but they are Government Ministers.

I'll leave it to other's common sense to decide if an Under-Secretary of State is routinely told about UFO sightings.
This minute is 36 days after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. "...Britain was the first state to begin enforcing the UN embargo on trade with Iraq and Kuwait, the Royal Navy intercepting and boarding ships ahead of all other coalition states, the US included."
https://www.margaretthatcher.org/archive/us-bush Margaret Thatcher Foundation: George Bush (Sr) Library.
So UK Defence Ministers were probably quite busy around this time.

do we have a source that these were the "relevant staffs" that were consulted?

-No, I suppose it's possible they employ someone with a copy of "The Observer's Book of Aircraft" before briefing an elected Government Minister, as opposed to asking the advice of a team who interpret photographic intelligence as a profession.

Probably not good career advice to tell a Government Minister that you have "established" something and you are "confident" about your finding unless that is indeed the case (see National Archives' memo, continued below).

It is worth remembering that relevant staff can sometimes be wrong

Absolutely, which is why I posted

I'm sure mistakes happened (and do happen), but RAF analysts are aware that their work has important consequences.

At the risk of bringing things down a bit, radiographers and surgeons misinterpret images as well, but on balance I'd rather trust the opinion of a medic with access to the original image than us folk on the internet looking at a scan of a print (which we are here).

Rest of the National Archives' minute:

I would just add, again(!), that the MoD memo mentions two aircraft (in addition to the UFO).
Can anyone else see an identifiable second aircraft in our photo? I can't. If no-one else here can,
either the guys examining the photos could get more out of the original of "our" image than we can, or there was more information to be obtained in the other photos.
Would repeat that, IIRC, conventional (pre-digital) camera film can have a far higher resolution than the image files/ screens we are likely using.

Hey @John J., when you talk to RAF/MoD

Not sure I understand.
There is obviously a contradiction between the identification of Harriers, and no Harriers being officially present on the date in question, though.

I think the most likely explanation is that the photo wasn't taken on the date in question, which questions the veracity of the claimants. And/ or the Harrier(s) are models used in a deliberate hoax.
Wim van Utrecht's "experiment" is a convincing demonstration of how this was done.

 

[Duke]

Did they determine that? Or has it only been determined that the British miltary didn't have any in the area at the time? (Or have we nailed down that other contractor-operated Harriers or foreign operated Harriers were also not there?* If so, I missed that...)

You'd have to ask the RAF/MoD what they meant in the highlighted statement in the oft referenced/posted memo. "No record" seems to indicate they looked at something, probably ORBs for the operational RAF/RN Harrier squadrons. As previously explained, Harriers seconded to non-operational MoD research and test organizations like RAE would probably not have been included in such a review.

But I was thinking more about the identification of the thing in the picture as a Harrier. If the other pics were generally of the same quality as this one, I'm not sure how that level of identification would be possible.

But maybe the other photos were better, or showed the plane better at least. More importantly, of course, my not understanding how it could be done is not compelling evidence -- there are lots of things that are true that I don't understand.

Don't feel like the Lone Ranger.

But if all we have on the identification of the plane is that somebody who was an authority, but we don't know who, came to that conclusion but we don't know what information led to that conclusion, then I think we have to keep the question open at least a little bit. It might well be a valid determination. But I don't think WE know that yet.

Just like we don't know who reviewed what data to say there was no record
of Harriers in the area at the alleged date/time of the event. I'd sure like to see the staff summary package that went with along with the memo.

*I'd regard the last as pretty unlikely, unless the world is a lot more like a John Clancy novel than I think it is...

Never was a Clancy fan, other than "Red October."

 

[Duke]

Sort of a reply to posts between 06:40 and 18:14 BST today from Mendel, Duke, and JMartJr.

Again, posted by jackfrostvc on the main Calvine thread, National Archives' reference DEFE 24/1940/1:

View attachment 58502

Please note, US of S(AF) is Under-Secretary of State (Armed Forces).
In terms of UK Government they are not Cabinet members (the most senior) but they are Government Ministers.

I'll leave it to other's common sense to decide if an Under-Secretary of State is routinely told about UFO sightings.

I've thought about explaining how such memos are staffed, at least in the USAF. Now seems like a good opportunity. I doubt the RAF/MoD process is much different, although terminology might differ.

Senior leaders have staffs headed by a Chief of Staff (CoS), whose responsibilities include reviewing incoming information and deciding what the boss needs to see. If the CoS decides there is something the boss needs to know, an "action officer" will be assigned the duty to prepare a staff summary sheet (SSS), usual just one page in length. (The AO can in turn get input from whoever is needed within the organization.) These are designated usually either "information only" or "action required," although both routinely conclude with conclusions/recommendations.

Accompanying the SSS is a tabbed/indexed package that provides details/documents the boss can use to learn more about the staff work undertaken to support the effort. Included is a coordination sheet signed off by the boss's senior staff from the various functionals to ensure each of those organizations have read and concur with what's been given to the boss. It's relative rare for a senior leader to get a staff summary package that includes a non-concurrence from a functional chief.

After having read the SSS, and the accompanying package if desired, bosses has several options. Generally they will simply sign off on information only packages, and return it to the AO. They are more apt to seek additional information relative to packages requiring action, however. They can request to see a specific functional (such as engineering or public affairs), request a detailed briefing for he and his senior staff, send the package back for additional staff work, etc. If the boss approves the recommended actions from his staff, it's then delegated to the appropriate office to act on.

That's a very brief description of the USAF text book process. Every senior leader has quirks and foibles that can lead to changes in the overall process. Depending on the intended recipient, the process can be quite nerve wracking. I've prepared SSS as both an engineer and a program manager, mostly for GOs, but once for an Under Secretary of the Air Force.

This minute is 36 days after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. "...Britain was the first state to begin enforcing the UN embargo on trade with Iraq and Kuwait, the Royal Navy intercepting and boarding ships ahead of all other coalition states, the US included."
https://www.margaretthatcher.org/archive/us-bush Margaret Thatcher Foundation: George Bush (Sr) Library.
So UK Defence Ministers were probably quite busy around this time.

-No, I suppose it's possible they employ someone with a copy of "The Observer's Book of Aircraft" before briefing an elected Government Minister, as opposed to asking the advice of a team who interpret photographic intelligence as a profession.

Probably not good career advice to tell a Government Minister that you have "established" something and you are "confident" about your finding unless that is indeed the case (see National Archives' memo, continued below).

Absolutely, which is why I posted

At the risk of bringing things down a bit, radiographers and surgeons misinterpret images as well, but on balance I'd rather trust the opinion of a medic with access to the original image than us folk on the internet looking at a scan of a print (which we are here).

Rest of the National Archives' minute:
View attachment 58503
View attachment 58504

I would just add, again(!), that the MoD memo mentions two aircraft (in addition to the UFO).
Can anyone else see an identifiable second aircraft in our photo? I can't. If no-one else here can,
either the guys examining the photos could get more out of the original of "our" image than we can, or there was more information to be obtained in the other photos.

The story has always been two Harriers, but the second Harrier was not shown in the unearthed photo.

 

[John J.]

The story has always been two Harriers, but the second Harrier was not shown in the unearthed photo.

Yes- If we accept that, I think that makes the theories that the images show someone rowing a boat or a chance disturbance of a mirror-flat pond surface significantly less likely.

Admittedly I can't rule out that there were two guys in rowing boats that looked like Harriers, fortuitously captured on film while a UFO photo was being faked, or, if we consider pareidolia, two subsets of visual stimuli that both look like Harriers.

Edited to add: I feel I'm being drawn down a rabbit hole obsessing about Harriers.

We're unlikely to get further clarification from the MoD. I think their 14 September 1990 minute strongly implies, and is meant to imply, that the Calvine photo could not have been taken on the stated date.
I would tend to believe that; had the story gone to press it would only take one tourist, hiker or plane spotter to come forward with their picture of a Harrier in the area to undermine the MoD's account.

If what is described as a Harrier in the picture can be shown not to be a real aircraft, then the claimant's account is untrue.
This equally applies if the image is a reflection, of course.
In fact, any proof that the image is a reflection- regardless of what is being reflected- would falsify the claimant's story.
Anyway, I'm fed up with Harriers!

Never was a Clancy fan, other than "Red October."

I liked James Rouche's "Zone" series as a kid.
A full-scale Russian invasion of neighbouring states has stalled after fiercer-than expected resistance. Bitter fighting continues, in a large but geographically defined area of Europe, between Russian and NATO forces -The Zone. Not like today, of course.

This one was about a rowing boat.

 

[Mendel]

Please note, US of S(AF) is Under-Secretary of State (Armed Forces).
In terms of UK Government they are not Cabinet members (the most senior) but they are Government Ministers.

Article:

The most junior Ministers are Parliamentary Under Secretaries of State, of whom there will be one in a small department and three or four in a large department. (The word 'junior' is shorthand used across Whitehall, but that does not mean that they are not significant figures in their department.) They do a great deal of important work, including piloting Bills through Parliament. They also carry out a wide range of representational and other duties, which means that they are always getting up early in the morning to attend events outside London, and then staying in the House until late in the evening to speak in adjournment debates. They take important decisions on individual cases and narrow issues. But they seldom get to take politically important decisions. These are reserved for their seniors.

Source: https://www.civilservant.org.uk/information-ministers.html

The ministers ranking below the cabinet are called "ministers of state", under-secretaries appear to be the third tier. Since their duties are representational, they'd be expected to field press inquiries; and the press wouldn't stop inquiring about a UFO story that the MoD had commented on simply because of trouble in Kuwait which the UK wasn't yet involved in.

I'll leave it to other's common sense to decide if an Under-Secretary of State is routinely told about UFO sightings.

this is conspiracy-theoretical innuendo that papers over the lack of evidence or a solid argument. The MoD doesn't routinely comment on UFO sightings, but this time they did (probably because of the alleged Harriers in the pictures); therefore, they don't routinely tell the US(AF), but this time they did. (Seems like common sense to me.)

Remember before you disappear down the rabbit hole, the MoD comment doesn't make the UFO special; it makes the Harriers special in that the MoD refused to acknowledge them, and thereby discredited the evidentiary value of the photograph and the accompanying story.

No, I suppose it's possible they employ someone with a copy of "The Observer's Book of Aircraft" before briefing an elected Government Minister, as opposed to asking the advice of a team who interpret photographic intelligence as a profession.

uncalled-for

the disagreement is over your claim that the staffs queried are those tasked with analyzing aerial pictures of the ground, vs. my supposition that the staffs queried are those tasked with identifying aerial threats (and non-threats).

You did provide evidence (thank you!), and it's in my favor:
View attachment 58504

Would repeat that, IIRC, conventional (pre-digital) camera film can have a far higher resolution than the image files/ screens we are likely using.

That's not true with respect to the full scan of the recently discovered image posted on metabunk. The only uncertainty here is how well the alleged Harriers are shown in the 5 missing pictures.

I think the most likely explanation is that the photo wasn't taken on the date in question, which questions the veracity of the claimants.

with respect to the Harriers, the possible explanations include
• not the given date
• not the given place
• not MoD Harriers (privately owned)
• models of Harriers
• not Harriers (pareidolia)

I know no evidence that makes me prefer one explanation over the other. However, since the UFO is supposed to have hovered for 10 minutes near a busy highway without anybody else recalling having seen it, i expect there's more wrong with the photos than just the date.

 

[John J.]

The most junior Ministers are Parliamentary Under Secretaries of State

Yes. Under Secretaries of State are Ministers. They are part of the UK government, ergo Government Ministers.
At present (don't know about 1990) there are 5 defence ministers: The Secretary of State, 3 Ministers of State, 1 Under Secretary of State.
The current Under Secretary isn't Minister for the Armed Forces like the Under Secretary of State was in 1990.
Former Under Secretary of State James Heappey retained that remit when promoted to Minister of State in July 2022.

The link you gave (civilservant.org) is a website written by a single former civil servant, not an official publication.

Since their duties are representational

These are the current duties of the Under Secretary of State, Armed Forces from the UK Government's official website,

https://www.gov.uk/government/ministers/minister-of-state-minister-for-the-armed-forces

styled GOV.UK, accessed 30/03/23. Again, this role is currently performed by a Minister of State:

the press wouldn't stop inquiring about a UFO story that the MoD had commented on

The Daily Record never ran the story. Nor did anyone else.
We have an MoD minute which appears to inform the Under Secretary of State (Armed Forces) that the Daily Record might run the story, and a proposed response. There is no evidence that the Daily Record ever received the response.

trouble in Kuwait which the UK wasn't yet involved in

Wrong. Utterly, completely and verifiably wrong. I'm sure you're a decent type Mendel, but I'm a bit angry at this.
I will debunk this assertion. Readers please note, this involves some discussion of real-world unpleasantness, scroll down to the unbroken line if you'd rather avoid this.

Iraq invaded Kuwait 1- 2 August 1990.
Two British soldiers, military advisers in Kuwait, were killed when their convoy, attempting to escape to the Saudi border, was fired on by Iraqi forces. Although some got to Saudi, a number of British REME soldiers- and their families- were captured. They don't talk about it. A response to a researcher asking about this on "Army Rumour Service" in 2005 (my highlight added):

https://www.arrse.co.uk/community/threads/were-you-in-kuwait.22820/ The Army Rumour Service, "Were you in Kuwait?", post 19, 23 November 2005, accessed 31/03/23.

The Iraqis arrested hundreds of British expats, business people and tourists. "There were numerous cases of rape and attempted rape of expat women". Our lives as human shields, Richard Brass, The Observer, Sunday 9th March 2003.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/mar/09/iraq

385 passengers and crew on British Airways flight 149 from London to Kuala Lumpur were forced off the jet and imprisoned when it made its first stopover at Kuwait International Airport. Some people- not necessarily your usual CT's- believe the flight was allowed to continue to Kuwait because there were British recce or int. troops on board (I'm rather sceptical of this).
"... some of the hostages themselves were subjected to forms of mental and physical abuse, which included instances of mock executions or rape" (one Iraqi was summarily executed after a cabin crewman, Clive Earthy, bravely expressed anger about the rape of his colleague, a British Airways stewardess).
"After ten days, the detainees were dispersed to various military-industrial sites. Women and children were given the opportunity to return home in late August, whereas those who remained were used as human shields"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airways_Flight_149

Wikipedia, "British Airways Flight 149", accessed 31/03/23.

So in the first two days of "trouble in Kuwait which the UK wasn't yet involved in", we have two dead British soldiers, approximately 500 Britons, including a military training team, held hostage, and a number of British women raped.
From 12 August, male prisoners were moved to sites that the Iraqis thought might be attacked by Western forces.

On 24 August, Saddam Hussein paraded some of the hostage families on television, famously including a 5-year old British child, Stuart Lockwood. It is hard to overstate the concern, disgust and anger felt by many in the UK as a result.

(Image from The Shropshire Star, "30 years on: How Saddam Hussein used human shields from Shropshire", Mark Andrews, 1st August 2020, retrieved 31/03/23)
https://www.shropshirestar.com/news...ur-time-as-saddams-human-shields-30-years-on/

YouTube, "Courageous British Boy Stuart Lockwood with Saddam Hussein...", Сергей Иванов, accessed 31/03/23.
Similar footage, of better quality, was shown nationwide on UK television.
This was the best I could find. I've heard Stuart Lockwood talk about this as an adult; he doesn't want to be defined by this episode- I would guess Western media have acted on a take-down request.
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciw70Tkf5M0


And, as already posted,

This action commencing sometime between 7-26 August 1990.
https://www.margaretthatcher.org/archive/us-bush Margaret Thatcher Foundation; George Bush (Sr) Library

Consider "...trouble in Kuwait which the UK wasn't yet involved in" debunked.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I'll leave it to other's common sense to decide if an Under-Secretary of State is routinely told about UFO sightings.

My intended meaning being "It's unlikely Under Secretaries of State are routinely told about UFO sightings". To which I get,

this is conspiracy-theoretical innuendo that papers over the lack of evidence or a solid argument. The MoD doesn't routinely comment on UFO sightings, but this time they did (probably because of the alleged Harriers in the pictures); therefore, they don't routinely tell the US(AF), but this time they did. (Seems like common sense to me.)

There is no "innuendo" whatsoever.
It's not a conspiracy theory to imply that Ministers are not routinely briefed about UFO reports.

(from the MoD minute),

and Mendel seems to agree, "The MoD doesn't routinely comment on UFO sightings...", continuing
"...this time they did (probably because of the alleged Harriers in the pictures)", which I agree with.
I don't think I've typed anything that contradicts this. Anywhere.
Quote, "(Seems like common sense to me.)" Me too.

Remember before you disappear down the rabbit hole, the MoD comment doesn't make the UFO special; it makes the Harriers special in that the MoD refused to acknowledge them, and thereby discredited the evidentiary value of the photograph and the accompanying story.

(1) The MoD didn't refuse to acknowledge Harriers in the photo. Quite the opposite. I'm not going to post those links again.
(2) Having identified the aircraft, the MoD stated that
"It has also been confirmed that there is no record of Harriers operating in the area at the time at which the photographs are alleged to have been taken".
I wholly agree that this casts doubt on (at least) the accuracy, and probably the veracity, of the photographer's claim.

I feel it is more in conspiracy theorist / rabbit-holer territory to assume that the RAF deliberately discredited an authentic photo.

IIRC, conventional (pre-digital) camera film can have a far higher resolution than the image files/ screens we are likely using.

That's not true with respect to the full scan of the recently discovered image posted on metabunk.

Are you referring to the 22MB 3103x 2480 TIF file here?

HD Image: https://web.archive.org/web/2022081....wordpress.com/2022/08/watermarked-jpeg-2.jpg
TIFF file: Source: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FCOQiQKciRJsZ4pm26hdrFuVv1uzMk-k/view

-That's still unlikely to be anywhere near the resolution of the original film photo.

Actually, we probably know this, because Andrew Robinson (Senior Lecturer in Photography, Sheffield Hallam University, the colleague of David Clarke who did the only professional photo-analysis we have access to) produced a daughter digital image of 138.5 MB, if I understand correctly. I might well have misunderstood, but Robinson's file sizes for his digitised image appear to be far larger than our 22MB TIF.
https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/analysis-redacted-v2-pdf.53447/ Andrew Robinson, Photographic Analysis, 02/08/22.
Robinson states "...the plane's silhouette is consistent with that of a Harrier jet."

-No, I suppose it's possible they employ someone with a copy of "The Observer's Book of Aircraft"

uncalled-for

Quite right I suppose, I was being a bit cheeky. Mick West does advise against humour. But I did include a !
Apologies if it annoyed you.
Conversely, I'm not at all annoyed at being labelled a conspiracy theorist, accused of papering over a lack of evidence [for what?] or the implication that I lack common sense, I'm sure that was all "called for".

None of us, as far as I'm aware, are in a position to find out which RAF unit or personnel assessed the Calvine photos,
or what procedures were used. I think there is little point arguing about it unless more info is available.
We know (well, some of us are confident) that the RAF trains highly-regarded specialists to analyse images.
We do know that the RAF identified a Harrier, and another aircraft as probably a Harrier, in the original Calvine photos.
We know they were sufficiently confident of this identification to include it in a memo to a government minister.
I do not think we are in a position to make a presumption of incompetence on the part of those who identified the planes.
This might not rule out the use of model aircraft.

We can rule out privately-owned Harriers in 1990 UK unless they were operated by British Aerospace.
Duke's suggestion, that the RAF didn't consider flights by MoD agencies (A&AEE, ETPS, RAE) that might have operated Harriers outside of front-line units (RN Fleet Air Arm, RAF Germany, RAF Strike Command) is a possibility.

Well, I'm going to cool my jets, as it were.

 

[Duke]

@John J. --

I have no specific knowledge on what the MoD was doing the couple days after the Iraqis invaded Kuwait, but I have to believe they were every bit as active in preparing to deploy as we were here.

The invasion was on a Thursday, and the next day we were told we were all on immediate 24 hour recall and could/would be seconded to other organizations as needed. This effected the ops and logistics functionals primarily. This was four days before President Bush gave the order for US forces to deploy to the ME.

 

[Mendel]

and the press wouldn't stop inquiring about a UFO story that the MoD had commented on simply because of trouble in Kuwait which the UK wasn't yet involved in.

• bringing up Kuwait is a red herring because it didn't make the world stop, it has no bearing on the UFO issues at all
• while Britain was affected by the invasion, it wasn't yet involved (as in, was actually there)

The MoD doesn't routinely comment on UFO sightings, but this time they did (probably because of the alleged Harriers in the pictures); therefore, they don't routinely tell the US(AF), but this time they did. (Seems like common sense to me.)

because of the innuendo, it's unclear why John wants us to consider whether this happens routinely or not; @John J. has not clarified this point.

the MoD comment doesn't make the UFO special; it makes the Harriers special in that the MoD refused to acknowledge them,

The MoD identified them, but refused to acknowledge that these were MoD Harriers.

I feel it is more in conspiracy theorist / rabbit-holer territory to assume that the RAF deliberately discredited an authentic photo.

red herring, nobody assumed this. I wrote, "i expect there's more wrong with the photos than just the date."

The Daily Record never ran the story. Nor did anyone else.

red herring, nobody claimed this

Are you referring to the 22MB 3103x 2480 TIF file here?

yes. you can scan the film at higher resolutions, which will expose more of the film grain (no doubt useful to Robinson in his analysis), but it's unlikely to tell you more about the depicted scene.

Robinson states "...the plane's silhouette is consistent with that of a Harrier jet."

Yes. It's also consistent with a man in a row boat. If you assume it's an aircraft, it's likely a Harrier. But this thread is about the idea that it might not be one.

I do not think we are in a position to make a presumption of incompetence on the part of those who identified the planes.

nobody presumed this. The hypothesis is that the experts were prejudiced in their identification by assuming they were looking at a photo of an aircraft, which is a natural assumption. Nobody would have expected them to consider that they were looking at a reflection in the water.

 

[Landru]

The topic is starting to drift. Iraq invasion of Kuwait is not the main topic.

 

[John J.]

while Britain was affected by the invasion, it wasn't yet involved

With apologies in advance to Landru, who is correct. I hope this might be acceptable.
Mendel, I wasn't flag-waving!
I think if a foreign government takes 500 of "your" people hostage, including troops, killing two, your nation is involved.
The point being: Wouldn't this have weighed heavily on UK defence ministers? Which maybe makes the briefing of a Minister about the Calvine photos during this period all the more unusual.

Obviously the USA led, and was by far the largest contributor, to the subsequent military response, demonstrating great professionalism and valour.

because of the innuendo

There is no innuendo.
I implied that officials do not normally report UFO sightings to Government Ministers. That is not innuendo.
It is clear that MoD officials do not normally report UFO sightings to Government Ministers.
The officials who decided to inform the Under Secretary of State for the Armed Forces must have thought there was something pertinent about the photos. Those officials would want to be confident about what they were saying about the content of the photos before troubling a Minister who would be struggling with serious "real-world" issues at that time.
Those officials wouldn't have been obliged to make a positive identification if they could not do so; if anything unidentified aircraft would be of greater defence concern. But they were sufficiently confident of the identification of the aircraft as Harriers to state it.

The Daily Record never ran the story. Nor did anyone else.

red herring, nobody claimed this

It's true, relevant, and I stated it because I thought you (Mendel) were making the claim

and the press wouldn't stop inquiring about a UFO story that the MoD had commented on

On reflection, I can see that you might have been hypothesising the thought-processes of the officials involved.
I apologise if I misunderstood; I hope you can see why I might have misunderstood your (above) comment.

Robinson states "...the plane's silhouette is consistent with that of a Harrier jet."

Yes. It's also consistent with a man in a row boat. If you assume it's an aircraft, it's likely a Harrier. But this thread is about the idea that it might not be one.

But Robinson did not say the image is consistent with a man in a rowing boat.
Our evidence is that those who have professionally examined the original photos (RAF or MoD) and a first-generation print (Robinson) have either identified the aircraft as a Harrier or stated that it is consistent with being a Harrier. No alternatives are mentioned.

And this thread is about the possibility of "our" Calvine photo being of a reflection in water (and therefore presumably a hoax), not principally about if the "aircraft" is a Harrier or not. Though if it can be demonstrated that it isn't a real jet aircraft, the photographer's claim is shown to be false.

the disagreement is over your claim that the staffs queried are those tasked with analyzing aerial pictures of the ground, vs. my supposition that the staffs queried are those tasked with identifying aerial threats (and non-threats).

Please re-read (link below). I made no such claim.

I could be wrong about this, and am happy to be corrected (er, hypothetically!)...
...but I think the vast majority of the imagery that RAF photo-analysts have to study is of the ground.

I stand by this. And the foreground in the photo(s) provide context which I think photo-analysts would be foolish to ignore.
The point I was trying to make was RAF photo-analysts are used to interpreting imagery that includes ground details,
including imagery taken in poor conditions (and over water, e.g. from Nimrod MR2). They are not naïve to the possibilities of misinterpretation of ambiguous imagery, or deliberate deception.
I don't know if different staff pools interpret "air-to-air" and ground (or over-water) imagery. I would guess some specialised personnel concentrate on identifying specific features of aircraft, others AFVs, others civil engineering (like bridges) etc.

Many Soviet / Russian combat types were first identified from aerial photos while on the ground.

This was the West's first sight of a Tu-160 Blackjack (bottom left), taken by a passenger on a commercial flight in 1981.
(Got this from a semi-defunct Pakistani site; IIRC the same picture is reproduced in a "Salamander" book by Bill Gunston, either An Illustrated Guide to the Modern Soviet Airforce, 1982, or An Illustrated Guide to Future Fighters and Combat Aircraft, 1984).
I'm sure US photo-analysts gave this a good look! The resulting estimates of performance, and artist's impressions, were close to the real thing.

I think (Mendel) you and I are perhaps talking at cross-purposes. Maybe we have both misinterpreted the intended meaning of each other's posts, and have consequently ascribed views or motives to the other which are incorrect.
(I'd still like to know which conspiracy theory I support! But maybe PM me if you feel the need).
Maybe we can move away from overly-critical assumptions about each other's posts.
I'm certainly not here to make anyone unhappy, and I'm sure you're not either- but sincere apologies if I did.
Of course, in saying this, I'm not negating your right to a point-by-point critique of this post!

 

[NorCal Dave]

Still seems like this discussion should be over on the main Calvine Photo thread. The existence of the Harrier, or a Hunter, is related to the entire photo and not just the mechanics of it being a possible reflection. However...

Wouldn't this have weighed heavily on UK defence ministers? Which maybe makes the briefing of a Minister about the Calvine photos during this period all the more unusual.

It is clear that MoD officials do not normally report UFO sightings to Government Ministers.

With what we have to work with here, I don't think it's clear what went on with UFOs and Ministers back then. Note the language of the memo:

"May wish to be aware" and "should be made aware" doesn't sound like a formal briefing about UFOs. It sounds more like somebody letting an underling of the Minister, or even and underling of an underling, know "Hey, some Scottish paper may run a UFO photo with what looks like a Harrier in it, and we gave them the standard line. You may wish to do the same if asked". Which seems to be the MoD's standard line at the time:

I guess I don't find the idea that some bit of information was passed up to someone in the Ministers office in anticipation of a possible newspaper story is all that strange.

We know (well, some of us are confident) that the RAF trains highly-regarded specialists to analyse images.

Maybe. We don't know who looked at them and it seems we don't know who wrote the memo. Consider the following:

We now know that most of the UFO/UAP research done from around 2008 or so in the US DoD involving AASWAP, AATIP and various other programs were all run by and/or staffed by Skinwalker Ranch alumni. Including, Lataski, Keller, Elizondo, Straton as well as "chief scientist" Travis Taylor from the TV shows Ancient Aliens and Skinwalker Ranch.

That's not to say the DoD isn't filled with photographic experts, but there is a definite possibility that unusual photos or reports found their way to the desks of those mentioned above. And we know that happened, as chunks of the UAP report from 2020(?) were prepared by Taylor under the direction of Stratton and presented to Congress with lots of misinformation and misinterpretations.

Now consider that, despite his over inflated resume, Nick Pope did work at the desk where UFO reports came to sometime after the Calvine incident. He may not have been the UK's or MoD's UFO expert the way he claims, but it seems that one of his duties was to deal with UFO reports that came in. He then wrote a book about UFOs being real aliens. And he's the guy fielding UFO reports for the MoD.

We should be careful to assume "government experts" are all well trained and unbiased when talking UFOs, especially when we have no idea who they are or were.

 

[Mendel]

The point being: Wouldn't this have weighed heavily on UK defence ministers? Which maybe makes the briefing of a Minister about the Calvine photos during this period all the more unusual.

Why? I don't follow that logic at all, is there precedent or written policy or any evidence for that assumption?

I implied that officials do not normally report UFO sightings to Government Ministers. That is not innuendo.
It is clear that MoD officials do not normally report UFO sightings to Government Ministers.
The officials who decided to inform the Under Secretary of State for the Armed Forces must have thought there was something pertinent about the photos.

No. Scroll back up and read the source, the rationale is CLEARLY STATED.
The unusual thing is that the MoD "UFO office" commented to the Daily Record about this photographs BECAUSE it had confirmed Harriers are shown in them. Because of this comment, further enquiries directed at the US(AF) were deemed possible, and the US wasn't to be left unprepared in case that ussue came up.

But Robinson did not say the image is consistent with a man in a rowing boat.

Yes. He has no cause to say this.
But the wording "is consistent with" is less than a positive identification.

The evidence we have is not solid enough to rule out the "rowboat" hypothesis until we learn more about the 5 missing photographs.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

I think it's important to keep things in perspective here.
-Realistically, this is just a trivial hoax, so let's not get too emotionally invested
-It's too ambiguous to come to a firm conclusion.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

My view is that the most likely scenarios are:

-Miniature models - both the flying saucer and the plane. The saucer is closer to the camera. The model plane is more distant. In that scenario I would have the lens stopped up all the way to keep the depth of field as shallow as possible.

-The glass shot technique. Both the saucer and the plane are cutouts stuck to a pane of glass. The camera is focused on the glass. The plane appears to be out of focus - and thus perceived to be more distant - because:
a. It's a cutout from a photo that's out of focus.
b. It's a cutout from a small portion of a photo and it has low resolution, not poor focus.
c. The glass is smeared with petroleum jelly at that spot.

I think the glass shot technique has been neglected because few people are aware of the technique. Even in the 70's only photo enthusiasts were aware of it. Over time even that knowledge has been mostly lost. But it was once very widely used. Not just in theatrical movies but by commercial still photographers as well.

It's just the sort of thing that a young photo student making an interesting hoax photo would use because it's more controllable than models. There's no problem with wind or visible strings.

As a young photo student I myself experimented with mirrors, including a large surplus bathroom mirror my friend and I took to Huntington Beach. We made some pretty convincing photos of onshore oil pumps that appeared to be out in the waves. Just for fun, you understand. I never thought of making a UFO hoax photo, but I might have done so if I'd thought of it. Just for fun.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

Also, present day UFO skeptics don't know about the old timey UFO hoaxters who used the glass shot technique.

An example is this George Adamski hoax home movie.

It's believed this is a cutout pasted on glass. You have to admire this on some level because the larger example is not a simple cutout. It's two-layered. When he tilted the glass, the rear layer was partially revealed. This made it look as if the "pod" was retracting or extending.

https://dai.ly/x3nv1ht

 

[John J.]

I'll pop this in here as it might be relevant to the discussion;
it's the opinion of Andrew Robinson, the Sheffield Hallam University photography lecturer who analysed the remaining Calvine photo at the request of David Clarke, Associate Professor in the Department of Media Arts and Communication (who tracked down the photo and the MoD records about it).

Mr Robinson's opinion is quoted on Mr Clarke's blog, "Dr David Clarke Folklore and Journalism", here
"The Calvine photographs - MoD response to MP's questions", October 23 2022
https://drdavidclarke.co.uk/2022/10/23/the-calvine-photographs-mod-response-to-mps-questions/

Perhaps the most bizarre theory suggests the photo is actually an inverted image not of an object hovering in a cloudy sky, but of something partly submerged in a body of water. The promoters of this theory believe the 'UFO' is actually a small island or rock in a Scottish loch: the bottom of the 'diamond' is actually a reflection of the island and the Harrier is a man sitting in a rowing boat.

Photography lecturer Andrew Robinson, who produced hi-resolution images of the print in Sheffield Hallam University's photo laboratories, says the image does superficially look like a reflection of a flat object sticking up from a body of water.

'But your gut instinct tells you that it isn't an inverted image. The other items in the image and all the angles are wrong for this to be a reflection. Quite apart from this the mirror stillness of the lake with not a single ripple and the lack of any surface debris (leaves, twigs, bubbles etc) whilst not impossible would be highly unlikely.

'There is a distant landscape clearly visible beyond the fence line. This would not appear if this was a reflection'.

Personally, I'm not hugely persuaded by the reflection hypothesis at the mo., but I'm not sure of Mr Robinson's rebuttal either:

(1) I think most of us here would be wary of "gut instinct" as a reason to support (or not support) a claim.
(In fairness to Mr Robinson: We don't know if he's regularly involved in analysing "UFO" photos- probably not- and he may
well be fed up with the whole Calvine thing. No doubt he has a deep understanding of photographic science and
technology, but I don't know if "formal" hypothesis testing is necessarily a regular part of his work).

(2) Re. the stillness of the lake (or loch) and the lack of surface debris, other metabunkers have posted examples of still water,
and I guess mist (or being slightly out of focus) might reduce/ hide any ripples etc.
If the photograph is a real scene- of an islet and a person in a boat- then I don't think we would expect to see surface debris
at the scale/ distances that the photograph appears to show.

(3) The "distant landscape clearly visible beyond the fence line" doesn't appear to be clearly visible to all of us, as earlier posts
here demonstrate. I think it's "landscape", but I don't think it's definitely landscape, and if someone said something like
"That's clearly the muddy shoreline of Lesser Faking-on-Sea, my old grandad used to go rowing there; here's some photos"
I would be surprised, but could be persuaded.

In the same article, David Clarke writes

Sceptics rightly say the most straightforward explanation is that the diamond-shaped UFO is actually a small model hanging from a thin thread near the camera.

and goes on to mention Wim van Utrecht's demonstration of creating a similar image,
with a link to Wim Van Utrecht's 29/08/22 work https://drdavidclarke.files.wordpress.com/2022/11/the-calvine-uap-photo-a-christmas-star_.pdf

I've "JPG'd" Wim Van Utrecht's PDF; I've left them as thumbnails (maybe they belong on the original Calvine thread); if you're interested click to enlarge



By the bye, if anyone's thinking about writing a book or making a movie about all this, I hope to emulate author Lionel Shriver's success by copyrighting the title,
"We Need to Talk About Calvine"