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,
External Quote:
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.