Calvine UFO Photo - Reflection In Water Hypothesis

[Ann K]

Of course, we are going to have to disregard this nonsense:

But picturing most cameras from the early 90s, especially in fog, light reflecting off a distance surface like rock would hit the film faster than light of non-reflective surfaces, which would make the rock appear to look like its floating in the air.

I'll note that Loch Tummel has about fifteen miles of shoreline, for anyone who wants to make a minute search for something which may or may not exist, and may have changed in the intervening decades.

 

[John J.]

Regarding attempts to match large landscape features with what might be large landscape features in the Calvine photo, without further information from the original photographer I am very sceptical that a conclusive match will be found.
Wouldn't be surprised if a number of possible or claimed matches were found.

I'm not sure if this image (which I just grabbed from a quick search) captures the full "depth" at the lower edge of the photo, but IIRC the features behind the fence aren't much clearer on the best versions of the image that we've seen.

 

[Copernicus]

Okay...it's a bit farfetched...but kind of fun to see a fresh new take on what--to me--has always
been a pretty obvious "hanging from fishing line" gag...

I noticed that if you go onto the google street view for the location in that post and set it to 2009, the leaves on the tree seem to match up closely to the same type in the original photo

I find this location to be convincing. It's the the only one I've seen where the fence is at the right angle, it's infront of a lake that could cause the reflection and has the right leaves over hanging.

 

[Matt33]

Street view from 2009: pebbles on the shore, fence, twigs. There is no sky or the opposite shore in the original photo, just the foreground and water. The jet is a duck and the UFO is something floating on or sticking out of the water.

 

[John J.]

The jet is a duck

It doesn't look like a duck.
Didn't the British Ministry of Defence find a second (presumed) jet in their analysis of the original picture(s)?

Of course, where there's one duck there might be others, and if one can look like a plane, two could.
There are no visible ripples or wakes on the hypothetical water. If the image is a reflection, the duck would be closer to the photographer than the UFO/ rock/ islet- the dangling foliage at the top of the picture confirm the orientation of the image if it's authentic- yet (to me) the duck appears less distinct (e.g. a less sharp outline).

If the duck is on the water, its reflection isn't very symmetrical (and we know the mystery diamond isn't symmetrical).
If it's in flight there's no visible reflection on the water surface. Maybe it was very misty.

I think it's more likely the Calvine photo is of objects with a backdrop of the sky.

 

[Mauro]

It doesn't look like a duck.
Didn't the British Ministry of Defence find a second (presumed) jet in their analysis of the original picture(s)?

Of course, where there's one duck there might be others, and if one can look like a plane, two could.
There are no visible ripples or wakes on the hypothetical water. If the image is a reflection, the duck would be closer to the photographer than the UFO/ rock/ islet- the dangling foliage at the top of the picture confirm the orientation of the image if it's authentic- yet (to me) the duck appears less distinct (e.g. a less sharp outline).

If the duck is on the water, its reflection isn't very symmetrical (and we know the mystery diamond isn't symmetrical).
If it's in flight there's no visible reflection on the water surface. Maybe it was very misty.

I think it's more likely the Calvine photo is of objects with a backdrop of the sky.

If the reflection-in-water hypothesis is true the 'jet' is probably a man rowing on a small boat, or just more rocks (somewhere in this thread there's a sketch of how the man-in-a-boat idea works).

 

[JMartJr]

If the duck is on the water, its reflection isn't very symmetrical (and we know the mystery diamond isn't symmetrical).

That would not be too unusual for a reflection in the water...

And I say that from over here on team "It's Something Dangling On String." ^_^

Edited: Forgot to insert duck.

 

[Giddierone]

Curiously, Loch Tummel appears to be a well situated hotspot for people taking photos of it's mirror-calm waters.
There are dozens on Flickr alone. Here's a few samples (Coincidentally it also appears to be a good place to spot...American Fighter Jets...):


Source: https://flic.kr/p/2hCrcnj




Source: https://flic.kr/p/gLrHVJ




Source: https://flic.kr/p/2hDKLg7




Source: https://flic.kr/p/7Tayfz


Source: https://flic.kr/p/2o3S8yh



Source: https://flic.kr/p/2o2ZWmC




Source: https://flic.kr/p/2ncdhtd



Source: https://flic.kr/p/E5g1xm

Queens View at Loch Tummel with fighter jet approaching

Source: https://flic.kr/p/DHCJaw

 

[Minus0]

Oh look, a bomb!

Is this the SR-71?

Here are a couple submerged rocks with darker shadows like the ufo

The shape reflected top right has a similar perspective but the reflection is lighter:

 

[NorCal Dave]

I find this location to be convincing. It's the the only one I've seen where the fence is at the right angle, it's infront of a lake that could cause the reflection and has the right leaves over hanging.

It's Scotland. There are bodies of water all over the place, lots of them near Calvine and Piltochry where the witness supposedly worked

The tree near the water with the knarely branches:

Looks a lot like a Sessile Oak:

Which is common in Scotland and most of Europe.

Or maybe a willow:

S. caprea occurs both in wet/damp environments, such as riverbanks and lake shores, and in drier sites, wherever bare soil becomes available due to ground disturbance.[3]​

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salix_caprea​

For me, the grey poplar, Populus × canescens, seems a closer match to the tree in the original photo:

https://www.treesandshrubsonline.org/articles/populus/populus-canescens/

There is lots of water and lots of trees in Scotland, and probably lots of fences too. The notion that someone can go out 30+ years later and say "that's the spot" seems unlikely. Even if it's the original photographer, that could be tricky. IF any of the original story has any validity, the photographer was a seasonal worker from out of the area, so he may not have been sure where he was at the time, let alone 30+ years later.

As for the reflected rock, I've never understood the difference between the top point and the bottom point:

Not only is the bottom reflected 1/2 darker, the points are opposites. It's a highlight on top and a shadow on the bottom. And as Mick noted back in post #102 when he experimented with a reflected object in a pool:

The "top" is darker than the bottom. This seems like a substantial objection.

Then there is the jet, and possibly another one in one of the 6 photos. Linsday claimed that the jet is in different positions in the 6 photos.

The reflection theory suggests either a pre-planned/lucky shot of a reflected overflying jet or a case of pareidolia.

According to the MoD, they identified it as a Harrier and noted that there was no Harrier's operating at that time and place.

The MoD said it is a Harrier and there were no Harriers around, so how does one end up being reflected in the pond? Clark faced the same issue, there were no Harriers based in Scotland at the time, but he thinks one or more were escorting a secret US aircraft in the phtot. He suggested it was a US Marine variant of the Harrier that had maybe flown up from southern England to escort the craft. Or 1 was just buzzing around when the photographer noticed it lined up in his reflecting pond.

Even if the idea is that this out of town kid knew there was a low level training area AND knew there was rock that reflected in a pond to look like a UFO, AND he knew the low flying jets would also reflect in the pond AND he just happen to go there on a dead calm day AND manage to line up his rock dead center while the Harrier cooperated and flew a low level mission in just the right spot, there were NO Harriers in Scotland.

@flarkey provides a possible solution in post #124:

Just two points regarding the aircraft and possible flight paths (it may help in pinpointing the location) - I know that Tornado crews at RAF Lossiemouth would regularly follow the A9 road at low level heading North as they return to base after a sortie as it was a quite fun and winding route.

Harrier:

Hunter:

Maybe a reflected hunter, with the MoD being lazy and just saying "Harrier". And even then, flarky notes it was Tornados that flew low, while the Hunter was a training unit. But still a lot of planning and luck to make that particular photo we see.

That's better than the photo analysts at the MoD collectively having a case of pareidolia and identifying a duck or a man in a rowboat as an RAF aircraft. In 6 different photos.

 

[jarlrmai]

There's the power of suggestion and context bias you show something that looks like a jet to people that id jets and it not being a jet never crosses their minds. That's the power of Metabunk and crowd sourcing.

It might be a jet and it probably is one or is intended to be one, but I though we should at least consider it not being one.

 

[Giddierone]

The town itself is only five miles from Loch Tummel, and a reflected object was my first thought. If the planes enjoy traveling at low altitude, over a long loch would be an ideal place to do it. That would also be consistent with the apparent downward camera angle.

Just saw this...blimey this is a long forum.

 

[Ann K]

As for the reflected rock, I've never understood the difference between the top point and the bottom point:

I've explained that a number of times, but it's exactly what you would expect of a two-dimensional reflection of a three-dimensional object. If the point on the top is farther away from the viewer, it could easily be hidden by portions that are nearer. If you pretend your eye is at water level, a point on top couldn't be seen from the location of the reflection.

@JMartJr 's duck picture is a good example. You can see the duck's back and tail, but you can't see them in the reflection because from the water the head and neck, being nearer to the camera, hide the rest of the bird. The neck is seen against the back, but in the reflection the neck is seen against the sky. That's what you would see if you were looking UP at the duck ...and from the surface of the water, you would indeed be looking up.

As for the lighter/darker question, the reflection is generally darker than the object if the water is clear - see duck for an example, and the rock reflections above. If the water is extremely muddy, though, it might be the reverse.

(Now you made me go back to @Mick West 's post 102!) He explains it:

1. The contrast of the reflected image is low because my pool (like most pools) has a light blue interior. If it were dark, then it would be much higher contrast. Puddles, ponds, etc, generally have dark bottoms.

 

[NorCal Dave]

Just saw this...blimey this is a long forum.

Whaa? It's only 17 pages. The Original Calvine Photo thread is 32 pages...so far. The Calvine Photo Hoax Theories thread is a paltry 8 pages. Collectively that's 57 pages dedicated to 1 obscure blurry photo with a dubious back story.

That's what you would see if you were looking UP at the duck ...and from the surface of the water, you would indeed be looking up.

But are we looking "up" in the Calvine photo? We're at least above the level of the fence, so 4'-5'?

I don't know, you and I have always been at the opposite end of the reflection theory, though I've maintained that it makes more sense than a UFO or an, as of now, still classified US secret aircraft farting around in Scotland. I must say post #648 above by @Giddierone does make me a bit more amenable to the idea. Calm water, lots of reflections and aircraft in the right area it appears, so all the elements are there. I'd still argue, if there is that many low flying aircraft and all those reflections, no one in 30 years has thought to photograph an aircraft reflected in the loch?

 

[John J.]

Oh look, a bomb!

Yes, silhouetted reflections can look like other things, I concede that .
But two ducks looking like Harriers to the extent that they fool RAF or MoD photo analysts seems unlikely.
Ducks are common in Britain.

flarky notes it was Tornados that flew low, while the Hunter was a training unit

As @Duke has posted elsewhere, RAF Jaguars and Buccaneers also flew fast at low altitude. During the 1970s-90s, British doctrine held that Soviet (and Soviet-supplied) surface to air missile systems were highly reliable, so survival of aircraft in defended airspace relied on the continuous practicing of low-level flying.
The 1st Gulf War demonstrated that Soviet SAMs were not as reliable as feared, and countermeasures could be effective, whereas ultra-low level attacks on Iraqi airfields, often requiring a line of flight aligned with the runway, exposed RAF aircraft to large numbers of cheap but effective AA autocannon. Mid-level attack was soon adopted as more practical for that environment.
Harriers in RAF service were close air support/ attack aircraft, routinely practicing low-level flight like the Buccaneers and Jags.
(Lots of images if you search "harrier mach loop" or "harrier low level".)

The last Hunters in RAF service were twin-seat trainers for prospective Buccaneer aircrew,

Two-seat trainer versions of the Hunter, the T.7 and T.8, remained in use for training and secondary roles by the RAF and Royal Navy until the early 1990s; when the Blackburn Buccaneer retired from service.

(Wikipedia, Hawker Hunter, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawker_Hunter); the Buccaneer retired in 1994
(Wikipedia, Blackburn Buccaneer, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackburn_Buccaneer).

UK defence technology company QinetiQ (established 2001, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qinetiq) operated Hunters inherited from predecessor organisations the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (1995-2001), the Defence Research Agency (1991-1995) and the Royal Aircraft (later Aerospace) Establishment (1904-1991); and the Aeroplane and Armament Experimental Establishment (1918-1991):

Hunter identified as a QinetiQ aircraft here, The Aviation Photo Company.
QinetiQ and predecessor organisations used aircraft largely as flying testbeds.

The Empire Test Pilot's School also operated Hunters for the UK MoD (but not, strictly speaking, the RAF), coincidentally ETPS has been part-managed by QinetiQ since 2001.

(From flickr album UK Test Fleet ETPS, RAE, A&AEE, DRA, QinetiQ).

The Royal Navy's Fleet Requirements Air Direction Unit operated land-based Hunters up to 1995 mainly to simulate attacks on RN warships, Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleet_Requirements_and_Aircraft_Direction_Unit, also FRADU Hunters webpage. Some were fitted with Blue Fox radar (as per Sea Harrier FRS1).

So there were a number of UK government agencies outside the RAF operating small numbers of obsolescent Hunters in 1990, largely for developmental, experimental or specialist training purposes. (As posted elsewhere, the same applies to some UK Harriers outside of RAF/ RN use in 1990).

I still think the thing in the photo is meant to be a Harrier though! And suspect it's part of a fairly straightforward hoax;
the Calvine Photo Hoax Theories thread has examples from Wim wan Utrecht (and @NorCal Dave ) to model the Calvine photo using essentially the technique suggested by @jackfrostvc ,
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/calvine-photo-hoax-theories.12596/post-286688, https://www.metabunk.org/threads/calvine-photo-hoax-theories.12596/post-286700

No reflections/ convenient military aircraft/ unidentified islets/ rowing boats or ducks required.

 

[Ann K]

But are we looking "up" in the Calvine photo? We're at least above the level of the fence, so 4'-5'?

No, think of it as "the water looking up", which is why what you see from above is not what the water "sees" from below, and the reflection of a 3-D object is not the same as the object itself when seen from above.

View from the side (not to scale!) A is the high point, but it's farther away, so only B shows in the reflection. Trust me, I've had to explain that to artists as well, who sometimes think of a reflected image as if the object itself is simply mirrored, but it's a lot more complicated.

If a thing isn't visible from the water level, it won't show in the reflection.

 

[Minus0]

Yes, silhouetted reflections can look like other things, I concede that .
But two ducks looking like Harriers to the extent that they fool RAF or MoD photo analysts seems unlikely.
Ducks are common in Britain.

Just to clarify, my post was in no way a response to yours. In fact, I already had this tab open before you posted as I was looking through different pictures of reflections. Apologies if it seemed otherwise.

I think it's entirely plausible it is a duck, or frankly any number of other things floating on the surface. I was simply adding some additional reflected stimuli and how they produce pareidolia. And I added the picture showing darker reflections to lightly coloured objects in response to earlier discussions on that

 

[Giddierone]

no one in 30 years has thought to photograph an aircraft reflected in the loch?

Briefly searches "low jet reflections AND loch" (better (or worse, since the jet is blurry and far away) ones surely must exist):


Source: https://flic.kr/p/dcz4GC



Source: https://x.com/CcibChris/status/1718599961351197092

1 obscure blurry photo with a dubious back story.

Agree, it's silly, and we'd not be being good sceptics if we didn't consider the possibility that it might be a military coverup of the cryptid kind, and what we're actually looking at is some kind of wee beastie!...

 

[Mauro]

As for the reflected rock, I've never understood the difference between the top point and the bottom point:

View attachment 75794

Not only is the bottom reflected 1/2 darker,

But see for example the photos of post https://www.metabunk.org/threads/calvine-ufo-photo-reflection-in-water-hypothesis.12572/post-333291 by @Minus0 for the same effect. It probably depends on lighting conditions.

the points are opposites.

This is more interesting, dunno what to say at the moment.

Then there is the jet, and possibly another one in one of the 6 photos. Linsday claimed that the jet is in different positions in the 6 photos.

"Linsday claimed" is by no means the same as "there are multiple photos with the jet in different positions".

View attachment 75805

The reflection theory suggests either a pre-planned/lucky shot

I'd say an incredibly lucky lucky shot.

of a reflected overflying jet or a case of pareidolia.

A reflected overflying jet looks very improbable to me. But pareidolia doesn't: a person rowing in a small boat, or more small rocks (+ reflections).

According to the MoD, they identified it as a Harrier and noted that there was no Harrier's operating at that time and place. The MoD said it is a Harrier and there were no Harriers around, so how does one end up being reflected in the pond?

Indeed. If there was no Harrier there, then it's not an Harrier.

Clark faced the same issue, there were no Harriers based in Scotland at the time, but he thinks one or more were escorting a secret US aircraft in the phtot. He suggested it was a US Marine variant of the Harrier that had maybe flown up from southern England to escort the craft. Or 1 was just buzzing around when the photographer noticed it lined up in his reflecting pond.

Speculations, ad-hoc excuses.

Even if the idea is that this out of town kid knew there was a low level training area AND knew there was rock that reflected in a pond to look like a UFO, AND he knew the low flying jets would also reflect in the pond AND he just happen to go there on a dead calm day AND manage to line up his rock dead center while the Harrier cooperated and flew a low level mission in just the right spot, there were NO Harriers in Scotland.

Irrelevant if it was not an Harrier (nor even a plane).

Maybe a reflected hunter, with the MoD being lazy and just saying "Harrier". And even then, flarky notes it was Tornados that flew low, while the Hunter was a training unit.

What do you mean with 'Hunter'? The Hawker Hunter was a very different airplane from a Harrier.

But still a lot of planning and luck to make that particular photo we see.

No plane, no planning, just luck.

That's better than the photo analysts at the MoD collectively having a case of pareidolia and identifying a duck or a man in a rowboat as an RAF aircraft.

Why not? The MoD probably did not care a bit about that photograph, it was just a distraction from the work they actually were busy doing. Let just say something and see if they shut up and leave use in peace.... (which did not happen).

In 6 different photos.

But again, where are the 6 different photos? Just hearsay from a single person.

 

[Ann K]

I'd say an incredibly lucky lucky shot.

If, as has been previously suggested, there were several aircraft going home to their base in an evening practice run, the photographer might miss the first one but anticipate the others.

Apart from that, your post makes an excellent point that we do not know for certain if the other photos exist, nor if they have ever existed.

 

[NorCal Dave]

"Linsday claimed" is by no means the same as "there are multiple photos with the jet in different positions".

But again, where are the 6 different photos? Just hearsay from a single person.

I would agree, the part about the jet(s) being in different positions in the photos is hearsay, but as for their supposedly being 6 photos in total, we do have the original handwritten report, possibly by Linsday or his assistant, claiming "A number of color photographs" and the MoD report claiming 6 photos:

So, there is some hard evidence for the existence of more than 1 photo, but if there were 5 others, they've never been found. This 1 survived because Linsday sorta pilfered it.

What do you mean with 'Hunter'? The Hawker Hunter was a very different airplane from a Harrier.

This was suggested by flarky way back in the original thread. As there appeared to not be any Harriers based in Scotland at the time and there were Hunters based nearby, is the jet actually a Hunter. Would they make similar out of focus silhouettes:

Maybe?

Why not? The MoD probably did not care a bit about that photograph, it was just a distraction from the work they actually were busy doing. Let just say something and see if they shut up and leave use in peace....

Agreed. They were getting ready for the Daily Record to publish the photo(s) and need a response, so maybe they just glanced at it said "Harrier" and left it at that. Or, they said "Harrier" and followed up with "no Harriers operating" in that area thus implying something about the story or photo is not authentic. Suggesting it's fake without calling it fake.

One would think if they thought it was pareidolia and really a duck or something, they would have gone with that instead. But again, if they aren't even thinking reflection, that wouldn't come up I suppose.

(which did not happen).

But it did, at least for a long time. The photos were never published, and the story went away until Nick Pope's book in the mid '90s makes mention of a poster sized print of the photo being hung on the wall for a time. There was an artist's rendition of the photo that floated around for a while and then eventually the faxed copy showed up. It really wasn't until Clark dug into the story that led to Linsday having the photo we now know. That's only been in the last few years.

There was some hearing or something in parliament that this photo kinda gets drug into, but they were more about US overflights of the UK with known aircraft like the SR71 IIRC.

 

[Scaramanga]

This was posted to Reddit earlier


Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1i0re3x/calvine_photo_possibility_at_loch_tummel_which_is/



Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1i0re3x/calvine_photo_possibility_at_loch_tummel_which_is/m70twnj/


https://maps.app.goo.gl/ZxCZg1649PP7qqcJ8

Not sure I quite buy it, but I thought others might be interested in seeing it.

Well...I found the exact spot on Google Earth, and the 'rock formation across the water' simply doesn't resemble the Calvine UFO at all. In fact I struggle to see anything at all....

 

[Giddierone]

There was some hearing or something in parliament that this photo kinda gets drug into

Is that the Hansard quote mentioned here? https://www.metabunk.org/threads/claim-1990-calvine-ufo.11574/post-245009

 

[Mauro]

Well...I found the exact spot on Google Earth, and the 'rock formation across the water' simply doesn't resemble the Calvine UFO at all. In fact I struggle to see anything at all....

Not finding on Google Earth the exact spot from which the photo could have been taken is not surpprising at all.

 

[Minus0]

Well...I found the exact spot on Google Earth, and the 'rock formation across the water' simply doesn't resemble the Calvine UFO at all. In fact I struggle to see anything at all....

Agreed. The fences and the hill behind lineup nicely though.

Perhaps this scenario (from the same spot on the road) makes more sense. I cut and paste some floating garbage onto the water.

I don't have time but what's nice about the fence is each post is a little bit distinct. I don't know if there's enough resolution to figure out the spacing and structure to definitively prove a match on location? I suspect the fences have been restrung with barbed wire which might've moved them slightly as well.

 

[Giddierone]

Just following this reflection argument and looking for examples of distinct objects in the middle distance reflected in mist with no background detail or horizon/water level, and with silhouetted foreground items. This seemed like a reasonable comparison. I wonder if with a higher angle of (like the above post) it might work.

I used this source image, cropped it, and removed the tree trunk to make it appear like the blob is floating.

Source: https://flic.kr/p/5BiMcc


If the "jet" in the Calvine photo is a reflection of a real plane would it have to be in the frame? (I always thought it looked a bit upside down).

Also, this one seems like a good demonstration of Anne's point above about objects and reflections being different.


Source: https://flic.kr/p/rgMMn3

[EDIT]
Ignoring the jet reflection problem for a moment (if it's a real jet), having cropped out the distracting trees I wonder if this appears to some as a flying object (not sure it does..but what if we add a model jet on a fishing wire...).

 

[Mauro]

Just following this reflection argument and looking for examples of distinct objects in the middle distance reflected in mist with no background detail or horizon/water level, and with silhouetted foreground items. This seemed like a reasonable comparison. I wonder if with a higher angle of (like the above post) it might work.

View attachment 75850
I used this source image, cropped it, and removed the tree trunk to make it appear like the blob is floating.

Source: https://flic.kr/p/5BiMcc


If the "jet" in the Calvine photo is a reflection of a real plane would it have to be in the frame? (I always thought it looked a bit upside down).

Also, this one seems like a good demonstration of Anne's point above about objects and reflections being different.


Source: https://flic.kr/p/rgMMn3

The vertex of the roof reflection (of the house in the background in the 2nd slide) is offset from the vertex of the real roof.

So the objection of @NorCal Dave in post #650:

As for the reflected rock, I've never understood the difference between the top point and the bottom point:

Not only is the bottom reflected 1/2 darker, the points are opposites.

looks like a normal thing for a reflection (the same for the darker underside, as shown in a previous post).

PS.: my current understanding at the moment is the Calvine photo is a hoaxed set-up (as shown in another thread) or a reflection in a lake (probably Loch Tummell) at 50% each. I'd really love it to be a photo because it would mean there was an exceptional gathering of conditions to get by chance a stunningly misleading picture. Marvelous.

 

[deirdre]

(not sure it does.

you need to add the story. "i was hiking up amountain and looking out over the mist filled valley when a ufo came up from below and hovered before me. unfortunately as i raised my camera it began to zip off at light speed, so i only got its tail end."

 

[John J.]

Perhaps this scenario (from the same spot on the road) makes more sense. I cut and paste some floating garbage onto the water.

Nice work Minus0! Oh, by the way,

Just to clarify, my post was in no way a response to yours

-no clarification needed, your post made a perfectly valid point . Thank you for the consideration, though.
But my feeling* is that two ducks impersonating Harriers simultaneously is stretching things a bit.

However, Minus0's picture (above) reminds us that we don't know at what angle the photographer was shooting in the vertical plane, or if the fenceposts were vertical or leaning toward / away from the photographer.

(From my post #585; original underlining; I was new-ish and having a sense of humour failure/ minor strop over something.)
The source was the MoD's "UFO files" kept at the (UK) National Archives, first posted by @jackfrostvc here.

It is frustrating for us to know that (1) there were other photos, (2) at least 1 other photo contained more, or at least different, visual information than the one we're familiar with (i.e. a second Harrier-like feature).

As far as I recall, the (claimed) two young men who reported the incident claimed to have seen only one conventional aircraft,

During the sighting a jet, identified by the MOD as a Harrier, made several low-level passes "as if the pilot had seen the object as well and was homing in for a closer look".

My emphasis; Wikipedia "Calvine UFO" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvine_UFO.

I'm very much in agreement with @NorCal Dave's point,

There is lots of water and lots of trees in Scotland, and probably lots of fences too. The notion that someone can go out 30+ years later and say "that's the spot" seems unlikely.

-and his observations about trees/ foliage; all areas have unique ecosystems but Perthshire (Calvine's county) isn't a Galapagos island. The trees are much the same as are found throughout NW Europe / Scandinavia; it's unlikely we can identify a location (or even if it's within Scotland) by the twigs and leaves visible in "our" Calvine photo.

If we disregard the dangling foliage, our geographical identifiers are this:

-And the claim that the photo(s) was (were) taken in the Calvine area. From questionable sources. And that's it.
Very little to go on.

The fence (remembering the image is from 1990 if the backstory is correct, otherwise 1990 or earlier) has a pin stake (or fencing pin) standing in for a fence post at left, so it's highly likely the fence has been replaced in the past 35 years.

As (IIRC) previously mentioned in one of the Calvine threads, the top strand looks like it has little clumps of material- possibly wool or matted hair from cattle; livestock sometimes seem to enjoy gently scratching themselves against fencing wire. This is a very common sight. The little clumps could be windblown grass or whatever, but if it is animal hair the location in the photo (top of post) must be unlikely.

If the Calvine UFO image we have, and the associated images that it seems likely existed, are of reflections in a body of water, there are some issues:

(1) The backstory (provenance) is false. And if the backstory is false, why should we believe the picture was taken in the Calvine area? -And anyway; false backstory = UFO claim that can be dismissed.

(2) If the (frankly unconfirmed) attribution of the photo(s) is correct, two young men from England doing seasonal work, and the photo is of a substantial natural feature (a rock or small loch islet) reflected in water in the Calvine area, the two lads would have to be daft to pass it off locally as a picture of a UFO and send pictures to a newspaper.
It would be recognised (and it hasn't been, for the past 35 years). The top half of the "diamond" has a pleasing symmetry.
What the two youngsters noticed would have been noticed countless times before by locals.
Calvine might be seen as "remote" by Scots in the central belt and by English folk, but that's a parochial view: It would have received the same daily newspapers and have access to much the same TV and radio channels as the rest of the UK in 1990 (and for decades before). People would have had telephones, TVs and VCRs.
The few local teens would more likely be watching Baywatch and listening to The Jesus and Mary Chain or Sinead O'Connor than weaving tartan.

(3) The photos (plural, but not "our" one) require two fighter jets flying overhead, inverted (alternatively, two ducks, or two rowing boats, misidentified by "the relevant staffs" as fighter jets).
(3a) The rowing boat interpretation seems unlikely if the dangling foliage is dangling, and not sticking upward.
(3b) Even allowing for misinterpretation and illusions created by reflection, I'm unsure that a duck (and in at least one image two ducks) would maintain an appearance resembling a fighter jet while (reportedly) travelling from right to left or circling the "UFO"/ rock/ whatever. That said,

"Linsday claimed" is by no means the same as "there are multiple photos with the jet in different positions"

...has to be correct from a sceptical viewpoint.
I've always had a bit of a feeling* that retired press officer Craig Lindsay (not an "RAF Officer" as David Clarke stated in Fortean Times) might know a little bit more about the Calvine photos than he's shared so far. I could be totally wrong, of course.


*Meaning I can't provide relevant evidence.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Maybe a reflected hunter, with the MoD being lazy and just saying "Harrier".

What do you mean with 'Hunter'? The Hawker Hunter was a very different airplane from a Harrier.

As Dave says, @flarkey originally raised the Hunter idea here. I must admit, I skated over it at the time (soz flarkey), I didn't know they were used as Buccaneer trainers at Lossiemouth (Scotland). Along with their trials roles (ETPS, Royal Aerospace Establishment and A&AEE) and RN use, there were still a few kicking around in UK service in 1990, not all "badged" RAF or Royal Navy.

@Mauro's totally correct that the Hunter and Harrier are very different aircraft. Describing some identifying features, the contrasts are clear: Mid-mounted vs. high-mounted wings, small triangular air intakes in wing roots vs. large almost semi-circular intakes each side of fuselage, fin-mounted tailplane vs. fuselage mounted tailplane, single jet exhaust nozzle at rear of fuselage vs. "four poster" vectoring nozzles, 2 each side of fuselage.
But considering the poor image quality of the possible plane in our Calvine photo*, I'm wondering if flarkey (and @NorCal Dave) might have a point.

Flarkey's original comparison of the Calvine image and a model Hunter.

Only really relevant if we think a real aircraft was present, of course. And a lot of aircraft look similar if you squint enough! Might explain the MoD statement about no Harrier activity in the area (although that then poses the issue of hypothetical Hunter activity perhaps being deliberately overlooked).


*As discussed, the MoD got to see at least 1 photo with 2 planes, 1 "established" (their words) as being a Harrier and the other "probably" a Harrier: We don't know how that photo compares to "our" photo.

 

[Mendel]

As discussed, the MoD got to see at least 1 photo with 2 planes, 1 "established" (their words) as being a Harrier and the other "probably" a Harrier: We don't know how that photo compares to "our" photo.

exactly, the MoD identification would've been made based on photos we think existed but don't have.

I can see them mistaking a rowboat for an aircraft, because that's not what they're trained for, but to commit to a type of jet and get it wrong seems less likely to me (but ofc not impossible).

 

[Giddierone]

Maybe it actually was a harrier or hawker or two, but we've no reason to believe the claimed date / time of the image.

More fiddling with the reasonably large thing in the water with its reflections + model jet on string hypothesis. I wonder if this creates a better illusion.

 

[JMartJr]

More fiddling with the reasonably large thing in the water with its reflections + model jet on string hypothesis. I wonder if this creates a better illusion.

It does, but if we are hanging things on strings anyway I'd guess the UFO is on a string as well. It's a matter of comparing the likelihood of "Let's fake a UFO pic, first we'll find something that looks like a UFO out in the world, then we'll hang a plane on a string to make it look better" with "Lets fake a UFO pic, let's hang some things from strings." The former is not impossible, but the latter is simpler and does not require the fog to be perfect, the lake to be mirror-smooth, etc.

(3b) Even allowing for misinterpretation and illusions created by reflection, I'm unsure that a duck (and in at least one image two ducks) would maintain an appearance resembling a fighter jet while (reportedly) travelling from right to left or circling the "UFO"/ rock/ whatever.

But if the "jet" is a non-moving object (a model jet on a string, another rock, some floating debris on a very calm day) it need not move at all to be placed in different positions in the picture... the camera could move. It is impossible to say much more about that without the other photos to examine, nor to speak to whether that could account for what the photos show if we cannot be shown them, but in general it is a thing that CAN happen:

Note: the background and foreground change if you make the fighter duck fly-swim past the UFO solely by camera movement... So an image with minimal background/foreground detail is handy. The UFO pic does have some foreground objects, but without the other pics we do not know whether or how much they change position or even if they leave frame between pictures, indicating a lot of camera movement. Edit to add: I don;t see anyway tomake the duck circle the UFO without the camera circling, and you'd get perspective problems... but I don't feel compelled to explain that happening until we see pics that show that it did.

PS added at last moment... if there was a current in the water and both objects are floating past, you could get this effect without moving the camera.

(Spaceship and duck used for illustrative purposes, I do not assume a spaceship or a duck is shown in the original picture.)

Credits: Ceramic duck by Miss Josie Gautier of Gautier Mississippi (near Pascagoula but so far as I know never abducted by crab-handed aliens), author of what was at one time the state song of Mississippi. Flying Saucer (United Planet Cruiser C-57D from "Forbidden Planet") 3D printed by Memories Renewed NC. I don't know who made the table...

 

[Giddierone]

It does, but if we are hanging things on strings anyway I'd guess the UFO is on a string as well. It's a matter of comparing the likelihood of "Let's fake a UFO pic, first we'll find something that looks like a UFO out in the world, then we'll hang a plane on a string to make it look better" with "Lets fake a UFO pic, let's hang some things from strings." The former is not impossible, but the latter is simpler and does not require the fog to be perfect, the lake to be mirror-smooth, etc.

Yes, but we can't really say what's more likely. If someone was looking to create a hoax picture we don't know how long they'd been thinking about or preparing for it. Perhaps it was someone local to a loch who frequently noticed a weird reflection in the mist (seems quite common see the galleries linked above) and thought "hey i'll add a model aircraft on a string to that" and send it to the local newspaper along with a tall tale.

 

[JMartJr]

Yes, but we can't really say what's more likely.

I'd say it is more likely that a random faked UFO pic was made with things on strings than with reflections in the water, given that I know of a number of things on strings cases but can't recall a single case of thing reflected in water. But I concede the point that a SPECIFIC picture might have come about through noticing a reflection that looked UFOish, and coming back with a plane and a camera and some string. Stranger things happen!

 

[Giddierone]

Used a few AI prompts to make this but I think it demonstrates the notion that perhaps the UFO image is a thing in the water, and its roughly symmetrical reflection. However, the jet in the Calvine photo is below the lower part of the diamond and not above it, which (I think) would mean we'd see two jets, the real one and it's reflection, like in the image below.
So, perhaps the jet is actually smaller and in the foreground i.e. a model on a string?

 

[Ann K]

So, perhaps the jet is actually smaller and in the foreground i.e. a model on a string?

But "larger and much higher up" works just as well.

 

[Ann K]

I'd say it is more likely that a random faked UFO pic was made with things on strings than with reflections in the water, given that I know of a number of things on strings cases but can't recall a single case of thing reflected in water. But I concede the point that a SPECIFIC picture might have come about through noticing a reflection that looked UFOish, and coming back with a plane and a camera and some string. Stranger things happen!

Or a genuine photo could be taken and after it was developed one of the boys said "Hey, this looks sort of like a UFO, let's take it to the newspapers".

 

[Scaramanga]

Agreed. The fences and the hill behind lineup nicely though.

Perhaps this scenario (from the same spot on the road) makes more sense. I cut and paste some floating garbage onto the water.

View attachment 75849
I don't have time but what's nice about the fence is each post is a little bit distinct. I don't know if there's enough resolution to figure out the spacing and structure to definitively prove a match on location? I suspect the fences have been restrung with barbed wire which might've moved them slightly as well.

Well, the location is clearly identical as so many features match. But the biggest give-away of identical location is the odd cross shaped wreckage of some old fence or structure in the bottom right, which is what I looked out for when I went along the road looking for the location.

BUT...I'm simply saying we've found the Google Earth location of the Reddit claim, NOT necessarily that of the original UFO photo.

There's simply no way one could go purely by fence posts to determine the location of the Calvine UFO. There's thousands of miles of such standard sized and height fence in Scotland. They are pretty much standard regulation fences, as yes there are even laws relating to roadside fence height, composition, and so on. Go somewhere 100 miles from Calvine and you'll see the exact same fencing.

 

[jarlrmai]

The location was supplied by the Reddit thread the location of where this Reddit user thought the UFO was shot was never in question.

 

[Scaramanga]

Used a few AI prompts to make this but I think it demonstrates the notion that perhaps the UFO image is a thing in the water, and its roughly symmetrical reflection.

Your AI needs to know that using barbed wire in a roadside fence in Scotland is subject to a whole host of laws that in most cases make it illegal. There'd be no actual reason to put barbed wire on a fence that was simply demarcating the steep drop off to the lake. The idea of such fencing would be to protect people...not to injure them.