Claim: Original Calvine UFO Photo

[Duke]

Thanks. For something written in ink over 30 years ago, that red ink held up quite well. Maybe not a surprise considering Lindsay had the photo "stashed" in his desk, little to no exposure to light probably kept it from fading.

Five years ago when my Dad died, in his effects I found the first letter I wrote home after moving to Texas in 1975. In all likelihood that letter had not been out of its envelope in over forty years, and, my terrible handwriting aside, looked pristine.

 

[Mendel]

it was 10 minutes. link to MOD paperwork:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/claim-original-calvine-ufo-photo.12571/post-276585

"alleged to have been taken near the A9 road at Clavine" is the official wording

the Scottish Daily Record writing "hovered above the A9" is taking a little bit of liberty with that

 

[deirdre]

"alleged to have been taken near the A9 road at Clavine" is the official wording

the Scottish Daily Record writing "hovered above the A9" is taking a little bit of liberty with that

ironically "above the A9" is really the only locations i could find where you could get that angle through a fence without twisting yourself into a pretzel. But yea the story was not "over the A9"

 

[DavidB66]

The names 'Kevin' and 'Russell' are both fairly common throughout Britain. There is a Kevin living a few doors away from me, and my local phone book (for a single London borough) has entries for 13 Russells. Still, the name 'Kevin Russell', for someone of the right age with Scottish connections, does narrow the search considerably. On Googling 'Kevin Russell Falkirk' I got a few interesting results (excluding references to the recent news articles). The first was for someone aged 41 in 2021 who was being prosecuted for a motoring offence in Falkirk Sheriff Court. Unfortunately this is about 10 years too young to be the Calvine photographer. But further down the page is an entry for a Kevin Russell with an Instagram account whose bio includes 'Loves the hills of Scotland, cycling, wild camping...', which sounds promising. I feel a bit stalkery for looking at his Instagram account, but he does have a lot of Scottish mountain photos, and seems a pretty good photographer. Unfortunately the bio doesn't give his age. (He also has YT and Twitter accounts, but neither do these.) From a few selfies he looks rather young to be the Calvine photographer, but I'm a terrible judge of people's ages, and I don't think a well-preserved 50-ish age is out of the question. Others may disagree.

 

[Ann K]

it was 10 minutes. link to MOD paperwork:

I suspect that if they did see a genuinely mysterious object hovering, the estimate of the length of time while excited might be even less reliable than the estimate of distance/size/speed. People tend to be wildly inaccurate in judging time spans even under mundane conditions, so let's not take their statement too seriously, no matter what conveniently round number they provided to the MOD.

 

[Duke]

The names 'Kevin' and 'Russell' are both fairly common throughout Britain. There is a Kevin living a few doors away from me, and my local phone book (for a single London borough) has entries for 13 Russells. Still, the name 'Kevin Russell', for someone of the right age with Scottish connections, does narrow the search considerably. On Googling 'Kevin Russell Falkirk' I got a few interesting results (excluding references to the recent news articles). The first was for someone aged 41 in 2021 who was being prosecuted for a motoring offence in Falkirk Sheriff Court. Unfortunately this is about 10 years too young to be the Calvine photographer. But further down the page is an entry for a Kevin Russell with an Instagram account whose bio includes 'Loves the hills of Scotland, cycling, wild camping...', which sounds promising. I feel a bit stalkery for looking at his Instagram account, but he does have a lot of Scottish mountain photos, and seems a pretty good photographer. Unfortunately the bio doesn't give his age. (He also has YT and Twitter accounts, but neither do these.) From a few selfies he looks rather young to be the Calvine photographer, but I'm a terrible judge of people's ages, and I don't think a well-preserved 50-ish age is out of the question. Others may disagree.

I've never used my given first name for anything other than legal purposes. All my life I've gone by a shortened variation of my middle name, but many know me by a nickname (Duke) I picked up in the 1980s. People I've known for over 50 years don't know my given first name.

 

[deirdre]

The names 'Kevin' and 'Russell' are both fairly common throughout Britain

and the United States. and i imagine Ireland. the 3 Kevins i know are Irish descent.
Really no reason to think the guy is still in uk.

 

[NorCal Dave]

he also implied he didnt know the names and had to ask the Daily record. and that it was the Atholl Hotel.

i dont know where Rory got this info, (or why Lindsay would doodle another journalist) but if true the K's match pretty good (if you ignore the extra line added in.) the t's ain't a bad match either, and the draggy "n" at the ends

I thought the part about writing the name is in the video. One of the problems with this whole case is the info is scattered about. Clark has 2 or 3 write ups on his blog page, but they don't all link to each other plus his article in Fortean Times that's behind a paywall, though @DavidB66 has shared most of that with us. There're various newspaper articles. There're 2 versions of the photo analysis report, some of which is updated or recanted in the YouTube video. Then there's the YouTube video, which is an hour or so, that includes the interview with Linsday.

The only real primary source documents are the ones from the MoD and the picture itself.

Speaking of the MoD documents, what's your take on the handwritten original report as compared to the writing on the back of the photo? Same person? I always infer that Linsday, or someone working for him, wrote the original report if his story is accurate.

 

[NorCal Dave]

In the news again for some reason -> https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/investigator-says-solved-uks-biggest-29387989

Don't just tease.

From the article, UFO buff Simon Holland claims the Harriers were owned by BAE Systems:

Holland said: “I think there is an acceptance by many that the photo is not a fake. There was, I believe, a mysterious aircraft in the sky that day. The MOD previously stated, no ‘known’ Harriers were flying in Perthshire on 4th Aug 1990. That turns out to be a massive clue to who’s they were.

“I discovered that the only other British Harriers were privately owned by BAE Systems, the defence contractor. They used their Harriers as multi-roll defence test platforms, testing BAE advanced technology. “I dug deeper and found that Marconi Advanced Materials, based inside BAE HQ at Warton, Lancashire, were probably working on an advanced ‘stealth’ skin material for the USAF.”

Content from External Source

Further claiming:

Holland said he recently tracked down Ron Evans, who developed British Aerospace’s Stealth Programme at Warton Airfield, in Lancashire in the late 1980s.

He said: “Ron did not confirm any Calvine testing but has explained the use of secret meta materials to hide aircraft from radar. I think there is enough evidence to suggest there was something going on and it would be very helpful if the MOD would just come out and tell us all about it.”

Content from External Source

So, were back to stealth aircraft tests with non-MoD Harriers. EDIT: Assuming what Holland is saying it true. If it was a test of materials that were floated or towed or something, I guess that's plausible, but why near a highway? Could Kevin Russel have seen balloon like material test device and misinterpreted what he saw? Wouldn't be the first time. Speaking of Mr. Russell, despite even having a purported photo of him from the '90s, no one can track him down:

Exhaustive research by the UFO hunters, seeking to find the photographer, involved contacting 150 Kevin Russells in Britain, Australia, the US and Canada, and about 300 more Scots called Russell. None confirmed they were the right man.

Content from External Source

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/investigator-says-solved-uks-biggest-29387989

 

[deirdre]

Speaking of the MoD documents, what's your take on the handwritten original report as compared to the writing on the back of the photo? Same person?

Don't look at all the same to me.

I always infer that Linsday, or someone working for him, wrote the original report if his story is accurate.

Lindsay was a press officer so i dont think the person who wrote that worked for Lindsay. To me the writeup appears to have been written after the negatives were returned to the Daily Record*. The writing looks female to me, so i feel a secretary at the MOD office.
I dont see Linday or the Daily Record caring about the weather conditions or focal lengths*.

*all of which are noted in the write up. what does Pope's handwriting look like? do we know?

 

[MyMatesBrainwashed]

I like that ufo hunters can't even hunt an io.

 

[Duke]

From the article, UFO buff Simon Holland claims the Harriers were owned by BAE Systems:

Holland said: “I think there is an acceptance by many that the photo is not a fake. There was, I believe, a mysterious aircraft in the sky that day. The MOD previously stated, no ‘known’ Harriers were flying in Perthshire on 4th Aug 1990. That turns out to be a massive clue to who’s they were.

“I discovered that the only other British Harriers were privately owned by BAE Systems, the defence contractor. They used their Harriers as multi-roll defence test platforms, testing BAE advanced technology. “I dug deeper and found that Marconi Advanced Materials, based inside BAE HQ at Warton, Lancashire, were probably working on an advanced ‘stealth’ skin material for the USAF.”

Content from External Source

I have my doubts the Harriers were "privately owned," but if they were Holland should be able provide civil registration letters (G-xxxx) for each of them. This data should be readily available from the UK Civil Aviation Authority.

What's more likely is the MoD leased MoD aircraft to the contractor for use in UK government approved/sponsored/financed test programs. In that case, the aircraft remains the property of the government, and maintains military registration. In the US, this is known as "government owned, contractor operated," or GoCo. Here's an example of such an arrangement of an RAF owned Meteor jet to UK aerospace firm Martin Baker for use in ejection seat testing. Note it remains in RAF markings and still carries its military registration, WA638. No civilian registration carried, although a Martin-Baker (MB) decal can be seen under the tail plane.


In the US, such leased aircraft are required to be maintained using up-to-date DoD tech data, and maintenance/flight records kept in accordance with DoD standards. The leasee is usually permitted access to spares and support equipment through the DOD supply system managed by the Defense Losistics Agency (DLA.)

If BAE was using leased back Harrier(s) from the MoD through a process similar to what's done in the US, Holland should be able to confirm that with a FOIA request. If that's the case, he should also be able to FOIA request the maintenance and flight records for the Harrier(s) leased. If those records still exist (RAF/RN Harriers were retired over a decade ago), and he can show BAE operated Harrier(s) were flown on the date/time of the Calvine sighting/photos, he might be on to something.

 

[Alexandria Nick]

There are privately held military aircraft, though, and not Korean War antiques. Air USA, for example, owns 46 F/A-18A/Bs that were never in US government hands. They're former Australian fighters.

A cursory search yielded six Harriers that were registered as civilian aircraft according to a basic search on the CAA G-INFO site: G-CBCU, G-CBGK, G-RNFA, G-RNTB, G-VSTO, and G-VTOL. The first five are of no interest, but G-VTOL is. It held the military registry of ZA250 briefly before becoming G-VTOL and serving as the demonstrator for the type. Of note is that British Aerospace is listed as the owner. An in-depth investigation, perhaps even serial number by serial number, could reveal that there were others that were registered to British Aerospace.

 

[Duke]

There are privately held military aircraft, though, and not Korean War antiques. Air USA, for example, owns 46 F/A-18A/Bs that were never in US government hands. They're former Australian fighters.

Sure. There a number of companies that provide former military fast jets for Dissimilar Air Combat Training (DACT) for armed forces all over the world. Over the years here in the US I've seen everything from Hunters, Sabres, and Super Sabres back in the 80s to Mirage F1s, Kfirs and F-16s as of late. In fact one of the F1s belonging to Textron crashed about a year ago in Arizona.

There is, or at least used to be, a privately owned test pilot school in Mojave, CA. Years ago on the way to China Lake I saw one of their Saab Drakens in flight. The only time I've ever seen one, an awe inspiring aircraft.

We also have fast jets owned privately here in the US, including a Sea Harrier owned by a retired USMC O-5. I saw it fly at an airshow back pre-COVID.

A cursory search yielded six Harriers that were registered as civilian aircraft according to a basic search on the CAA G-INFO site: G-CBCU, G-CBGK, G-RNFA, G-RNTB, G-VSTO, and G-VTOL. The first five are of no interest, but G-VTOL is. It held the military registry of ZA250 briefly before becoming G-VTOL and serving as the demonstrator for the type. Of note is that British Aerospace is listed as the owner. An in-depth investigation, perhaps even serial number by serial number, could reveal that there were others that were registered to British Aerospace.

It's not uncommon for airframers to keep aircraft as a demonstrators, especially early in an aircraft's production life. I looked up G-VTOL, and then remembered seeing it at Brooklands Museum back in the early 2000s. According to this site, however, G-VTOL was struck off the UK civil registry about five months before the Calvine sighting.

https://www.aerialvisuals.ca/AirframeDossier.php?Serial=39108

If BAE privately owned other Harriers, so be it. My point was Holland should be able to prove with it data from the CAA. Unfortunately, records from privately/commercially owned aircraft are not subject to FOIA requests. In that case, he won't be able to provide records from the date in question to support his case.

If they were MoD a/c, however, their maintenance/flight records should be subject to FOIA requests. Do those records still exist? I don't know, but it would behoove the guy making the claim to ask the question.

 

[Mendel]

If BAE privately owned other Harriers, so be it. My point was Holland should be able to prove with it data from the CAA. Unfortunately, records from privately/commercially owned aircraft are not subject to FOIA requests. In that case, he won't be able to provide records from the date in question to support his case.

sure, but maybe a UK resident could politely ask BAE about it? if the job was classified, it might not lead anywhere, but if it wasn't their jets, their in-house archivist/historian might be able to deny it.

 

[Duke]

sure, but maybe a UK resident could politely ask BAE about it? if the job was classified, it might not lead anywhere, but if it wasn't their jets, their in-house archivist/historian might be able to deny it.

To my mind, that UK resident should be the journalist (of sorts) who's making the claim.

 

[NorCal Dave]

If BAE was using leased back Harrier(s) from the MoD through a process similar to what's done in the US, Holland should be able to confirm that with a FOIA request.

Just a question, as I have no idea how this stuff works. By the '80s the second generation Harrier was being developed and built by McDonnell-Douglas and British Aerospace. IF BAe is building the jet, could they just keep a couple for themselves as test beds, or would they send them to the RAF and then lease them back?

The Harrier was extensively redeveloped by McDonnell Douglas, and later joined by British Aerospace (now parts of Boeing and BAE Systems, respectively), leading to the family of second-generation V/STOL jet multi-role aircraft. The American designation for this was the AV-8B Harrier II.[25]

Content from External Source

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

Either way, there should be some record of them somewhere as you pointed out.

It could be Holland is just wildly speculating. From the article, he's from the area that always pops up as the secret test base for US covert operations:

Holland, from the Mull of Kintyre, contacted the Record after we revealed the identity of hotel porter Kevin Russell,

Content from External Source

I'll have to check out his channel when I have a bit more time:

Holland, whose YouTube channel attracts many UFO buffs,

Content from External Source

 

[Ann K]

It could be Holland is just wildly speculating. From the article, he's from the area that always pops up as the secret test base for US covert operations:

Every mention of him that I find calls him a "UFO expert". Not sure what qualifications one must have for that, but it does indicate his bias.

 

[Duke]

Just a question, as I have no idea how this stuff works. By the '80s the second generation Harrier was being developed and built by McDonnell-Douglas and British Aerospace. IF BAe is building the jet, could they just keep a couple for themselves as test beds, or would they send them to the RAF and then lease them back?

It's a function of whatever the contractual agreement is between the contractor and the government customer. I'm not familiar with how the RAF/MoD does business, but in the DoD/USAF, a contracted deliverable becomes government property after the signing of a form called a DD250. At that point, the deliverable is the government's to do with as it sees fit. In theory, the government could loan/lease the deliverable back to the manufacturer for whatever contractually agreed upon purpose without it ever even leaving the plant.

Either way, there should be some record of them somewhere as you pointed out.

It could be Holland is just wildly speculating. From the article, he's from the area that always pops up as the secret test base for US covert operations:

To me this is the crux of the issue. Basically, in the "Daily Record" article he makes two claims.....the diamond shaped object in the photo may have been a BAE developed stealthy platform and the jet(s) in the photo were BAE/privately owned Harrier(s). He provided no evidence to support either claim. Until such time as he presents documented evidence to prove those claims, he is at best speculating.

 

[John J.]

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

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

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

("...here" being NorCal Dave's post, 1st link above), NorCal Dave gave a well-reasoned reply, here:

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

...and onwards.

To clarify, my belief is that the Calvine photo(s) is (are) a hoax, but I can't prove it; if I could I'd gleefully post my evidence.
I know next to nothing about photography, but the "UFO" looks too boldly-defined to be at any distance, no subtle atmospheric "bluing" / paling.
The examples given in the "Calvin Photo Hoax Theories" thread
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/calvine-photo-hoax-theories.12596/ seem sufficiently close matches to demonstrate that the Calvine photo could have been faked with relatively little effort, and I think that this is more likely than (1) a secret test of a large, silent, rapidly- manoeuvring VTOL aircraft in 1990 or (2) an extra-terrestrial craft sent to view a bit of countryside for a few minutes.

But, I don't think the presence of a Harrier (if it is a Harrier) on a day when the Ministry of Defence (MoD) states that none were in the area is sufficient to debunk the Calvine photo by itself.

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

Here's a clear picture of a Harrier, stated to be at Lossiemouth, summer 1990, from an aviation enthusiasts site.
-I've just noticed the photographer's date, 12/07/90 (in image), this is 23 days before "Calvine" (04/0/90)

https://www.airport-data.com/aircraft/photo/000411281.html
The website is pretty "straight", there's no UFO or conspiracy angle, and I can't think of a reason for the photographer to lie.

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

This document also mentions the task had ‘already [been] discussed with Ops 4 Squadron‘. This is significant as No 4 Squadron flew ground attack Harrier jets from RAF Gutersloh in Germany in 1990.

("He" being Dr David Clarke). Er, so a German-based Harrier squadron wasn't in Scotland. Not exactly breakthrough research on Clarke's part. No. 4 Squadron were in Germany with Harriers 1970-1999, No. 3 Squadron, likewise, 1971-1999.

No. 1 Squadron operated Harriers in the UK 1969-2010, from RAF Wittering and RAF Cottesmore. No. 233 Operational Conversion Unit, later No .20 (Reserve) Squadron was co-located with No. 1 and flew Harriers 1970-2010.
The above photograph was identified as a No. 1 Squadron Harrier arriving in Lossiemouth .
In 1990 (and quite a few years before and after) HM Ships Invincible, Illustrious and Ark Royal all operated Harriers, often in northern waters.

There were Harriers performing a very unusual evening time training run on a Saturday and the MoD failed to identify them.

The MoD often posts scheduled low-flying times and tries to "be a good neighbour" (and employer) by minimizing unnecessary weekend and night flying. However, changes do occur, not all low-level (or supersonic) flights are announced in advance, and British forces do practice night flying.

In 1990, the RAF started receiving Harriers optimized for night attack:
and

(Wikipedia, "British Aerospace Harrier II", accessed 25/03/23, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Aerospace_Harrier_II)
...so the RAF Harrier Squadrons would need to practice at dusk and night. And this need coincides with the time of the Calvine photo.

As well as making the odd administrative or PR mistake, I think we should consider the possibility that the MoD might at times be less than 100% truthful about some matters. I doubt very much that the Calvine photo shows either a UFO or "X-plane", but if it does show a real jet, there might be reasons for the MoD to obfuscate or deny it- maybe testing low-level night attack, maybe something as mundane (and morally questionable) as a wish to avoid having to compensate local farmers for distress / injury to livestock grazing at a time when no low-flying was scheduled.

There are some precedents, of course; e.g. RAF pilots flew U2's over the Soviet Union, something very few people knew at the time (or for some decades after) despite the death of a pilot in training:
"Revealed, the RAF's secret Cold War heroes", Paul Lashmar, The Independent, Sunday 26 January 1997
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...the-raf-s-secret-cold-war-heroes-1285189.html

 

[NorCal Dave]

On the Calvine Reflection Theory thread, a number of points came up conserning the Harrier(s) in the photo. As the Harriers are not exclusive to the Reflection Theory, I thought I'd copy a few of the post here for ongoing discussion.

From: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/calvine-ufo-photo-reflection-in-water-hypothesis.12572/page-14

@John J. pointed out that Harriers need not be based in Scotland to show up there:

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

Content from External Source

Post #541

I responded with some of the info from the MoD memo:

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



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



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

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

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

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

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

Content from External Source

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

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

Content from External Source

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

I think that leaves us with a few possibilities:

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

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

Content from External Source

Post #542

@JMartJr asked:

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

Content from External Source

Post #543

And @Duke had some thoughts:

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

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

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

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

Content from External Source

Post # 544

Now that we're up to speed.

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

I suppose not. I think Flarky first raised the idea of it being a Hunter instead of a Harrier because there were no Harriers based in Scotland at the time. As John J. noted, Harriers need not be based in Scotland to still go and train there. It seems the MoD thought it was a Harrier in the photo and looked into that. I guess they could have mistaken a Hunter for a Harrier and then never inquired about Hunters operating in the area. Not sure where it leaves us.

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

The idea of it being a private Harrier was raised by Simon Holland, a UFO buff on YouTube. I watched a bit of his videos to see if he had any actual evidence for the claim but couldn't find any. I'll note he buys into many of the stranger claims from the Rendlesham forest UFO case.

Member @Alexandria Nick found a number of Harriers that seemed to be owned by somebody other than the MoD, so it's possible. But even if it's a private Harrier, what's the bigger implication? The photographer managed to catch a photo of a private Harrier to use in his hoax one way or another, or the private Harrier was escorting a Top Secret stealth craft over rural Scotland unbeknownst to the MoD.

I'm just having a hard time with the whole idea of a Top Secret to this day, stealth aircraft from the US being tested over, albeit sparsely populated but still public rural Scotland. Regardless of whether the Harriers were RAF, USMC or belong to BASe, or where Hunters, trying to place them there on the specific date and time when there is no evidence for them being there seems like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.

 

[NorCal Dave]

This post continues a discussion on the "Calvine UFO Photo- Reflection In Water Hypothesis" thread, here

My bad. Apparently, we crossed paths and now gummed up this already very long thread a bit more as evidenced by my post above. Hopefully the idea of what were discussing doesn't get lost.

 

[John J.]

Continuing discussion from the Calvine UFO Photo- Reflection In Water Hypothesis;
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/ca...in-water-hypothesis.12572/page-15#post-288935

It sounds more like somebody letting an underling of the Minister, or even and underling of an underling

Yes, sort of. The MoD minute is addressed to "APS/US of S(AF)"- an Assistant Private Secretary of the Under Secretary of State for the Armed Forces.
At present (don't know about 1990), a junior minister might have the assistance of a private secretary and two assistant private secretaries. They are civil servants. Description here, Wikipedia, "Private secretary", accessed 03/04/23:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_secretary

"May wish to be aware" and "should be made aware" doesn't sound like a formal briefing

-I think that's an excellent observation. To me it sounds very formal, but I'm from a middle-class, southern England background.
It's in the register traditionally used by senior civil servants ("Whitehall Mandarins") and other establishment figures in the UK (but by no means all). It's arguably a type of "Officialese".
Sometimes mistaken for equivocation or indecision by other English users. It's starting to be realised that this register (sometimes mistakenly called a code, as in code-switching) may disadvantage people from working-class or immigrant backgrounds. I've known a couple of very bright Aussies who find it both hilarious and annoying- "a*s covering" and pompous.

"Civil Service World" (CSW), published by Total Politics Group, had a recurring feature "Terminological inexactitudes: handy translations of Whitehall jargon", which (in a humorous context) printed this (accessed 03/04/23):
View attachment 58543
https://www.civilserviceworld.com/i...-handy-translations-of-whitehall-jargon-vol-3
The website "Understanding the Civil Service" is the work of one former civil servant. Mendel brought it to my attention, so all credit to Mendel. It has a similar feature to CSW, "Basic Mandarin", again light-hearted, but with more than a grain of truth:

View attachment 58544
From https://civilservant.org.uk/misc-humour-mandarin1-2.html, accessed 03/04/23.

Nick Pope did work at the desk where UFO reports came to

Good point. I would hope that someone with relevant technical expertise would be asked to look at the photos.
Do we know anything about his predecessor? (At "Secretariat (Air Staff) Sec (AS) 2a", MoD- had to look it up).

(Added later): Had a quick look at one of the pages on David Clarke's website "Dr David Clarke Folklore and Journalism",
https://drdavidclarke.co.uk/2021/07/31/the-ufo-that-never-was-the-calvine-photographs/

According to three separate senior MoD sources and documents I obtained from responses to Freedom of Information requests, the photographs were indeed the subject of several expert investigations. These were carried out by the Defence Intelligence Staff, the RAF’s JARIC agency and by the Pentagon.

Dr Clarke tracked down and publicised "our" Calvine photo). David Clarke doesn't provide additional information about his MoD sources or FoI requests as far as I can see (but I might have missed it).

JARIC (Joint Air Reconnaissance Intelligence Centre) has since been subsumed into the Defence Intelligence Fusion Centre
(Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_Intelligence_Fusion_Centre accessed 04/04/23).
More (mainly historical) information here at the National Collection of Aerial Photography (accessed 04/04/23),
https://ncap.org.uk/JARIC; it has a large but almost impossible-to-browse image archive (and only goes up to 1989).

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.

Hey, here's an example of me misinterpreting one of your posts-
-when I first read this, I thought you were claiming that the minute suggested the United States wasn't to be left unprepared!

For the sake of anyone new to the thread, so they don't make my daft (if temporary) error,
the "US of S (AF)" is the UK's Under Secretary of State for the Armed Forces.
(There is no "US(AF)" or "US" in the National Archive documents ref. DEFE 24/1940/1, or any reference to anything American).

I downloaded the documents from the National Archives, but I couldn't see anything different to what metabunker jackfrostvc found.
Posting "my" copies here, click to enlarge... saves us having to go back to page 2 of the thread.
View attachment 58545View attachment 58546View attachment 58547

The unusual thing is that the MoD "UFO office" commented to the Daily Record

We know that the MoD (actually D/Sec (AS) 12/2) proposed lines to take if a response were required. (Copy of minute, 2nd and 3rd image above). The same minute says "The negatives have now been returned to the Scottish Daily Record."

But there's no evidence that the MoD commented about the photographs to the Daily Record- obviously a response couldn't have accompanied the negatives.

Part of the puzzle is that The Daily Record didn't run the story, and
"...no one at The Daily Record remembered the story clearly..."
https://drdavidclarke.co.uk/2022/08/12/the-calvine-ufo-revealed/
"Dr David Clarke Folklore and Journalism" website accessed 04/04/23; Fortean Times 423, October 2022 article "UFO Cover-Up At Calvine" by David Clarke has the same wording.

 

[NorCal Dave]

At present (don't know about 1990), a junior minister might have the assistance of a private secretary and two assistant private secretaries.

So, maybe still what I'm thinking, that the story was passed up the chain in case questions came up. As Mendal noted, it may have been the presence of what appears to be a Harrier in the photo that made it a bit more compelling than a run of the mill UFO pic, at least one
that may generate more questions.

It's in the register traditionally used by senior civil servants ("Whitehall Mandarins") and other establishment figures in the UK (but by no means all). It's arguably a type of "Officialese".
Sometimes mistaken for equivocation or indecision by other English users.
I've known a couple of very bright Aussies who find it both hilarious and annoying- "a*s covering" and pompous.

I'm with the Aussies on this one . But the "ass covering" or CYA as we call it, seems a likely assessment. The US of S(AF) might get asked about this photo in the paper, so the D/Sec(AS) better let one of the US of S(AF)'s APSs know what's up. In addition, the D/Sec(AS) copied The Head of Sec(AS), DD GE/AEW as well as the DDPR(RAF) just to cover all the bases. Essentially: "We've seen the pictures. We don't normally have the resources to look at UFO stuff. These photos appeared to have Harriers in them, so we took a closer look, but concluded there were no Harriers in the area at the time, so we moved on".

Good point. I would hope that someone with relevant technical expertise would be asked to look at the photos.
Do we know anything about his predecessor? (At "Secretariat (Air Staff) Sec (AS) 2a", MoD- had to look it up).

I have no idea who would have coordinated any of this, though presumably it was the person that Linsday claimed told him get a hold of the photos and send them to London. I'm not insinuating that they had the same mind set as Pope, just that it's possible.

Dr Clarke tracked down and publicised "our" Calvine photo). David Clarke doesn't provide additional information about his MoD sources or FoI requests as far as I can see (but I might have missed it).

Yes, Clark said the photo was examined by multiple agencies according to FOIA papers:

According to three separate senior MoD sources and documents I obtained from responses to Freedom of Information requests, the photographs were indeed the subject of several expert investigations. These were carried out by the Defence Intelligence Staff, the RAF’s JARIC agency and by the Pentagon.

The dossier reveals how, in 1992, the DIS sent an image of a ‘possible research vehicle‘ flying in Scottish airspace to the CIA. That image was sent to the Pentagon where it was subject to further US-UK analysis, as revealed in a document written by the UK’s Air Attache in Washington DC.

Content from External Source

But note the date, 1992. So, this likely had little to do with the original flap about the photos rather, it was a response to Parliment asking about secret US Air Force/CIA flights of the UK. Even the FOIA document Clark is referencing lists it a likely hoax and part of the Aroura story:



That it was believed to be a hoax by members of the military is confirmed by the 2 people willing to go on the record with Clark.

RAF Air Commodore Simon Baldwin:

...who commanded Britain’s last V-bomber squadron that saw action in the Falklands War. Baldwin was serving as Air Attache in Washington when one of the images from Scotland surfaced at the Pentagon in 1992.

When I spoke to Baldwin he dismissed the theory that the object in the photograph was a Stealth aircraft. He believes the whole story is a spoof – the same word he uses in a memo sent to MoD in December that year that I obtained using the Freedom of Information Act

Content from External Source

Baldwin believes the story – and the photographs – were the result of an elaborate hoax that briefly fooled the intelligence services.

He says the photographs – one of which he saw – depict ‘an airborne Loch Ness Monster’.

Content from External Source

And Sir Donald Spiers:

Baldwin’s involvement is revealed in a series of letters he sent to London whilst Air Attache during 1992, copies of which I obtained using the Freedom of Information Act. One was addressed to Sir Donald Spiers, Controller of Aircraft at MoD, a 3-star rank at the time.

The prank explanation was confirmed by Sir Donald, a former Assistant Chief Scientist RAF. He said that he recognised the black and white image from the MoD files as the same one he saw at the time. There was, he said, ‘no doubt that the photograph was a spoof,’ a conclusion he claims is based upon analysis by ‘our technical experts’.

Content from External Source

It's only Clark's unnamed source that claims it was a US craft:

A source in MoD’s defence intelligence staff, whose identity I have chosen not to reveal, claims the object in the photograph was identified as a US experimental aircraft. He says it was operating from a RAF base in Scotland and was escorted, not shadowed, by RAF and US aircraft.

If true this would contradict Parliamentary statements in 1992-93 that no authorisation had been given by the UK Government for the US to operate experimental aircraft in its airspace.

‘There was nothing extraterrestrial about what was seen in Scotland,’ he said. ‘No one else other than the Americans had anything like it at the time. We were not allowed to say exactly what it was. But we knew what it was.’

Content from External Source

https://drdavidclarke.co.uk/2021/07/31/the-ufo-that-never-was-the-calvine-photographs/



So, if we go with the idea that all the photo analysts who saw this were well trained and unbiased, the people who went on the record said those same analysts thought it was a hoax. Unlike some of the US's well trained and unbiased analysts that thought stars and boka were aliens.

Part of the puzzle is that The Daily Record didn't run the story, and
"...no one at The Daily Record remembered the story clearly..."

This has always struck me as odd. As Clark says:

Even more baffling no one at The Daily Record remembered the story clearly or could explain what had become of the negatives that remain missing to this day.

Content from External Source

https://drdavidclarke.co.uk/2022/08/12/the-calvine-ufo-revealed/

My first reaction to that is, it was no big deal. Young guy sent some pictures, they got sent to the MoD and then returned as "unknown, but there were no Harriers around then". Maybe a phone call or visit to Piltochry turned up a hoax. They knew who the photographer was, it was easy enough to have him show where it happened. Ask around if anyone saw Harriers that weekend. Ask about the as yet unknown accomplice or any other number of questions that would show a crack in the story.

Instead, Clark chose to go with his unnamed source and then speculated on a D-notice being invoked to bury the story, something that I think would have been remembered.

And @John J. , if you're having a bit of trouble with the formatting of external content, feel free to PM me. It took me a while to figure it out. Hovering over my name/avatar and it will give you the option to PM.

 

[John J.]

So, maybe still what I'm thinking

Pretty much agree with everything in your post.
I downloaded the (UK) National Archives files DEFE 31/179/1 and DEFE 31/180/1 only yesterday (and looked at David Clarke's site).

I'll have to have another look when I have time- IIRC there is a memo in DEFE 31/180/1 which I thought showed significant MoD sensitivity about "Calvine", but I won't comment further unless/ until I find it again (just in case I got it wrong!)

Looking at a note I made yesterday, there are two very low-quality photocopies of the Calvine image, which David Clarke has described as photocopies of a line-drawing of the Calvine image (pages 36, 37 of DEFE 31/180/1) without any text or numeration.
The DEFE 31/180/1 pages (the files download as a pdf) appear to be in chronological order, most recent first.
I'm unsure if the brief cover note (pg. 38) is associated with the pictures, but it's likely that these 2 pictures were added to the file on or between 03/02/92 and 05/02/92.
Immediately after the Calvine images there are 8 photocopied pages (pdf pages 28-35) from Aviation Week & Space Technology magazine, issues Oct. 01 1990, Dec. 24 1990 and Oct. 28 1991. There is no explanation for their inclusion.
It would seem that these pages were added to the file at the same time, or immediately after, the Calvine photocopies (on or between 03 Feb. and 05 Feb. '92).

These all discuss possible secret US aircraft, and have some artist's impressions, including a diamond-shaped craft not unlike the Calvine "thing".
I think Duke has already posted a decent cell-phone shot of the same image.

I'll have a sort-through of DEFE 31/180/1. Annoyingly, the (free) online resource I normally use to render pdf's into JPGs asked for payment yesterday (bloody cheek! Don't they know who I am? ) so apart from "snips" I can't post individual pages from it at the moment.

Incidentally, some of the items in DEFE 31/180/1 have a common dating format, e.g. ROUTINE 070835Z FEB 92 means 7th February 1992, 08:35 Zulu hours (same as UTC, GMT)

 

[Duke]

@John J.
I was fascinated by the use of the world "spoof" in the sources @NorCal Dave posted (#1104 above) quoting an RAF Air Commodore and an RAF Assistant Chief Scientist in describing the Calvine event.

I worked in the UK with MoD and contractor personnel on and off for over ten years and never heard "spoof" used as a synonym to "hoax" or "prank." In military speak, "spoof" is commonly used to describe the effect of electronic countermeasures (ECM) on sensing systems such as radar.

As a Brit, does "spoof" in the context used above seem reasonable to you? I can't imagine a USAF type using the word in this context.

 

[NorCal Dave]

I'll have a sort-through of DEFE 31/180/1. Annoyingly, the (free) online resource I normally use to render pdf's into JPGs asked for payment yesterday (bloody cheek! Don't they know who I am? ) so apart from "snips" I can't post individual pages from it at the moment.

Just use the screen shot tool. Press "S", the windows key (the one with the 4 squares on it left of the space bar) and the "shift" key all at once. It will then let you designate what area of the screen you want to capture. Once you do that, it will be in the snipping tool where you can add highlighters or lines. Then Paste (Ctrl "V") into your comment.

Although I've usually found that I can just highlight text sections of PDFs and then copy and paste into an External Content box.

Looking at a note I made yesterday, there are two very low-quality photocopies of the Calvine image, which David Clarke has described as photocopies of a line-drawing of the Calvine image (pages 36, 37 of DEFE 31/180/1) without any text or numeration.

This sounds like the "original" Calvine photo that made the rounds before the Linsday photo was discovered. It may have been the copy of the photo that Linsday claimed to have made and then faxed to London or the actual fax copy. Then there was an artist's rendition based on that fax/copy version and Pope's recollections of what he saw on the wall at his office.

The DEFE 31/180/1 pages (the files download as a pdf) appear to be in chronological order, most recent first.
I'm unsure if the brief cover note (pg. 38) is associated with the pictures, but it's likely that these 2 pictures were added to the file on or between 03/02/92 and 05/02/92.
Immediately after the Calvine images there are 8 photocopied pages (pdf pages 28-35) from Aviation Week & Space Technology magazine, issues Oct. 01 1990, Dec. 24 1990 and Oct. 28 1991. There is no explanation for their inclusion.
It would seem that these pages were added to the file at the same time, or immediately after, the Calvine photocopies (on or between 03 Feb. and 05 Feb. '92).

Do you have a link for these pages so we can take a look?

Again though, note the date for adding stuff to the file, February 3-5 '92. This is classic UFOlogy.

A photo(s) is captured in '90 and ends up at the MoD. It's looked at and a memo is generated concerning it before the photos are returned. The newspaper chooses to not run the photo. End of story.

Two years later, there is a flap about weather Her Majestie's Government is allowing the US to use UK airspace for top secret fly overs with existing aircraft (SR71) or the probably non-existent Auroa. There're hearings in Parliament and the old Calvine photo gets a second look in relation to US flyovers. It gets new legs, and it creates a paper trail that makes it appear to be more important than it really was.

 

[Vattic]

As a Brit, does "spoof" in the context used above seem reasonable to you? I can't imagine a USAF type using the word in this context.

It sounds reasonable to me. Didn't stand out. Maybe a bit old fashioned. Most places I hear it used now is as a synonym for parody, but I have heard it used to mean a prank, hoax, or to trick someone (as in deceive) too.

 

[Mauro]

It sounds reasonable to me. Didn't stand out. Maybe a bit old fashioned. Most places I hear it used now is as a synonym for parody, but I have heard it used to mean a prank, hoax, or to trick someone (as in deceive) too.

Wiktionary agrees




https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/spoof

 

[Duke]

Wiktionary agrees




https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/spoof

Considering how strict this forum is relative to credible sources and their proper citation, it amazes me how often various "Wiki" sites that can be edited/changed at will by anyone (who hasn't been blocked) are referenced/cited here.

In any event, I note the modern, technical/military use of the team, to describe the effect of electronic countermeasures on sensors, is not included in Wiktionary.

 

[Mendel]

Considering how strict this forum is relative to credible sources and their proper citation, it amazes me how often various "Wiki" sites that can be edited/changed at will by anyone (who hasn't been blocked) are referenced/cited here.

We don't reference "various" sites, but mostly wikipedia (and wiktionary) which enforce editorial policies requiring references. They are highly credible, as studies have shown. The fact that anyone can edit them means that anyone can correct them, and wikis keep a history of all changes, allowing critical readers to track (and easily undo) malicious edits.

In any event, I note the modern, technical/military use of the team, to describe the effect of electronic countermeasures on sensors, is not included in Wiktionary.

Don't just complain, edit wiktionary and add it!

Of Merriam-Webster, Collins, the Cambridge Dictionary, and dictionary.com (my top results on google), only dictionary.com includes that use, as "to trick (electronic devices, as radar), by interrupting or otherwise corrupting data in order to avoid detection."
Though dare say that wiktionary's first definition, "act of deception", covers it. (You will recognize another word from their 1906 quotation, "Spoof—spoof. Is it possible that you have been here since Saturday without learning what ‘spoof’ means? It means to chaff, to joke.")

 

[Mendel]

Considering how strict this forum is relative to credible sources and their proper citation

to elaborate on this further, metabunk is not strict about credible sources at all, otherwise bunk couldn't be quoted. (What you must not do is drop a link and leave it at that.)

however, providing a citation serves as a reality check. people (even senior members) are often tempted to post what they feel is true; backing this up with a quote tells readers that other people also believe the claim, and it's often possible to see who they are. A wikipedia/wiktionary quote is prima facie evidence that this claim is fairly mainstream, and thus worthy of consideration. It also gives us a means to dig deeper.

citing wikipedia is better than citing nothing at all.
if you can't even find a wikipedia quote to back up your claim, you definitely need to support it well.

 

[FatPhil]

Considering how strict this forum is relative to credible sources and their proper citation, it amazes me how often various "Wiki" sites that can be edited/changed at will by anyone (who hasn't been blocked) are referenced/cited here.

In any event, I note the modern, technical/military use of the team, to describe the effect of electronic countermeasures on sensors, is not included in Wiktionary.

I'd bet that wiktionary entry was lifted from etymology online, which I consider to be the most reliable online source for such matters.
https://www.etymonline.com/word/spoof

spoof (n.)

"hoax, deception," 1889, from spouf (1884), name of a game invented by British comedian Arthur Roberts (1852-1933). Sense of "a parody, satirical skit or play" is first recorded 1958, from verb in this sense (1914).

spoof (v.)

1889, "to hoax, deceive, trick;" from 1914 as "to parody or satirize;" see spoof (n.). Related: Spoofed; spoofing.

Content from External Source

 

[Mendel]

I'd bet that wiktionary entry was lifted from etymology online

that's their 3rd reference

 

[deirdre]

We don't reference "various" sites, but mostly wikipedia (and wiktionary) which enforce editorial policies requiring references. They are highly credible, as studies have shown. The fact that anyone can edit them means that anyone can correct them, and wikis keep a history of all changes, allowing critical readers to track (and easily undo) malicious edits.

quoting wikipedia is a way of hiding the source you are relying on. or hiding the fact there is no source and is just the wiki writer's opinion.

If wikipedia requires sources, the members should quote FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE.

Wikipedia is fine for quoting on uncontroversial topics, like ice supersaturation. But it's best to see if you can quote the multiple original sources as well.

 

[Duke]

We don't reference "various" sites, but mostly wikipedia (and wiktionary) which enforce editorial policies requiring references. They are highly credible, as studies have shown. The fact that anyone can edit them means that anyone can correct them, and wikis keep a history of all changes, allowing critical readers to track (and easily undo) malicious edits.

Probably not the the place to debate the credibility of Wiki.

Don't just complain, edit wiktionary and add it!

Not a complaint, an observation. Not my job to edit/add.

Of Merriam-Webster, Collins, the Cambridge Dictionary, and dictionary.com (my top results on google), only dictionary.com includes that use, as "to trick (electronic devices, as radar), by interrupting or otherwise corrupting data in order to avoid detection."

Good to know.

Though dare say that wiktionary's first definition, "act of deception", covers it. (You will recognize another word from their 1906 quotation, "Spoof—spoof. Is it possible that you have been here since Saturday without learning what ‘spoof’ means? It means to chaff, to joke.")

A point made by @Vattin in post #1108 that use of "spoof" in that connotation is "maybe old fashioned."

To get back to the actual topic:

My grandmother (who ironically died just a few weeks after the Calvine event) called her sofa a "Davenport." Of course that's a correct use of the term from days gone by that would no doubt be found in a modern dictionary, but it's not common in current day vernacular, nor was it in 1990. This was my original question to @John J. (or anyone from the UK for that matter), if use of the term seemed reasonable when used by the two senior RAF officials in that connotation, not if a definition existed that made its use correct. In hindsight, however, perhaps "in common use" would have been a better qualifier rather than "reasonable."

It further seemed odd that a senior scientist working in a high level military/defense position, who undoubtedly would know how the term was used in the military/defense world at the time, would use it in the context he did. Similarly, I would find it odd if a senior design engineer from Apple or Samsung called a cold pill a "tablet." Not wrong, but certainly not how one would expect him/her to use the word ordinarily.

 

[deirdre]

A point made by @Vattin in post #1108 that use of "spoof" in that connotation is "maybe old fashioned."

it's a stretch ....but could the hearsay of the american guy be referring more to "its proof of a spoof" since the alleged harriers escaped detection?

 

[NorCal Dave]

If wikipedia requires sources, the members should quote FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE.

I have a "Yes, but":

Yes, it's better to quote the original source, when possible, but sometimes they are not readily available. Case in point, our discussion of the Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot film, much of the source material quoted in the Wiki article is from old out of print books and newsletters, none of which is online so, we make do. (I do have a list of those books and on a trip to Idaho last month I scoured the antique and used books shops to no avail.)

I would also think Wiki is fine for general knowledge questions, like "when was wheat domesticated?" The original source material for that is going to be 10's if not 100's of academic papers likely behind paywalls and almost unreadable for the average layperson. Wiki does a good job of distilling the information down to something useful.

Back on topic.

t further seemed odd that a senior scientist working in a high level military/defense position, who undoubtedly would know how the term was used in the military/defense world at the time, would use it in the context he did.

I think the context is the issue here. Baldwin is using the term "spoof" as a retired RAF officer talking to a non-military researcher. Similar to when Baldwin used the term "spoof" in an official memo. While Clark says "...in a memo sent to the MoD", I don't think it's for other RAF/MoD people that would understand the word as "electronic countermeasures". The memo was from 1992 and was likely about briefing members of Parliament who were looking into the possibility that the Calvine photo showed a US stealth craft operating in UK airspace. He used the word "spoof" as in hoax or prank, knowing that's how a non-military person would understand it.

Likewise, I would think that if Baldwin were asked to provide a memo on "electronic countermeasures" to members of Parliament, he would NOT use the term "spoof", as they would not understand it that way. If "spoof" is a euphemism for ECM in military circles, then it's a jargon word:

jargon
noun [ U ]
special words and phrases that are used by particular groups of people, especially in their work:
military/legal/computer jargon

special words or expressions that are used by a particular profession or group and are difficult for others to understand:

Content from External Source

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/jargon


Here is the whole section about him from Clark:

But his story is contradicted by RAF Air Commodore Simon Baldwin, who commanded Britain’s last V-bomber squadron that saw action in the Falklands War. Baldwin was serving as Air Attache in Washington when one of the images from Scotland surfaced at the Pentagon in 1992.

When I spoke to Baldwin he dismissed the theory that the object in the photograph was a Stealth aircraft. He believes the whole story is a spoof – the same word he uses in a memo sent to MoD in December that year that I obtained using the Freedom of Information Act.

Baldwin says he was called in by a 3-star Lt General after the CIA sent one of the photographs to the Pentagon without informing them the source was UK MoD.

In the misunderstanding that followed, it emerged that the Pentagon believed the image actually depicted a RAF experimental aircraft developed using secret Stealth technology, shared with the British, without the knowledge of the US Government!

Baldwin believes the story – and the photographs – were the result of an elaborate hoax that briefly fooled the intelligence services.

He says the photographs – one of which he saw – depict ‘an airborne Loch Ness Monster’.

Content from External Source

https://drdavidclarke.co.uk/2021/07/31/the-ufo-that-never-was-the-calvine-photographs/

 

[Mauro]

Here is the whole section about him from Clark:

But his story is contradicted by RAF Air Commodore Simon Baldwin, who commanded Britain’s last V-bomber squadron that saw action in the Falklands War. Baldwin was serving as Air Attache in Washington when one of the images from Scotland surfaced at the Pentagon in 1992.

When I spoke to Baldwin he dismissed the theory that the object in the photograph was a Stealth aircraft. He believes the whole story is a spoof – the same word he uses in a memo sent to MoD in December that year that I obtained using the Freedom of Information Act.

Baldwin says he was called in by a 3-star Lt General after the CIA sent one of the photographs to the Pentagon without informing them the source was UK MoD.

In the misunderstanding that followed, it emerged that the Pentagon believed the image actually depicted a RAF experimental aircraft developed using secret Stealth technology, shared with the British, without the knowledge of the US Government!

Baldwin believes the story – and the photographs – were the result of an elaborate hoax that briefly fooled the intelligence services.

He says the photographs – one of which he saw – depict ‘an airborne Loch Ness Monster’.

Content from External Source

https://drdavidclarke.co.uk/2021/07/31/the-ufo-that-never-was-the-calvine-photographs/

Apologies for hijacking your quote, @NorCal Dave!

I think the sentence in bold explains nicely why the MoD memo was sent to a member of the government staff and the 'defensive lines to take' remarked by @John J. in the Calvin UFO Photo-Reflection Thread:

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... )

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/calvine-ufo-photo-reflection-in-water-hypothesis.12572/post-288820

 

[Duke]

I have a "Yes, but":

Yes, it's better to quote the original source, when possible, but sometimes they are not readily available. Case in point, our discussion of the Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot film, much of the source material quoted in the Wiki article is from old out of print books and newsletters, none of which is online so, we make do. (I do have a list of those books and on a trip to Idaho last month I scoured the antique and used books shops to no avail.)

I would also think Wiki is fine for general knowledge questions, like "when was wheat domesticated?" The original source material for that is going to be 10's if not 100's of academic papers likely behind paywalls and almost unreadable for the average layperson. Wiki does a good job of distilling the information down to something useful.

Back on topic.


I think the context is the issue here. Baldwin is using the term "spoof" as a retired RAF officer talking to a non-military researcher. Similar to when Baldwin used the term "spoof" in an official memo. While Clark says "...in a memo sent to the MoD", I don't think it's for other RAF/MoD people that would understand the word as "electronic countermeasures". The memo was from 1992 and was likely about briefing members of Parliament who were looking into the possibility that the Calvine photo showed a US stealth craft operating in UK airspace. He used the word "spoof" as in hoax or prank, knowing that's how a non-military person would understand it.

Likewise, I would think that if Baldwin were asked to provide a memo on "electronic countermeasures" to members of Parliament, he would NOT use the term "spoof", as they would not understand it that way. If "spoof" is a euphemism for ECM in military circles, then it's a jargon word:

jargon
noun [ U ]
special words and phrases that are used by particular groups of people, especially in their work:
military/legal/computer jargon

special words or expressions that are used by a particular profession or group and are difficult for others to understand:

Content from External Source

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/jargon


Here is the whole section about him from Clark:

But his story is contradicted by RAF Air Commodore Simon Baldwin, who commanded Britain’s last V-bomber squadron that saw action in the Falklands War. Baldwin was serving as Air Attache in Washington when one of the images from Scotland surfaced at the Pentagon in 1992.

When I spoke to Baldwin he dismissed the theory that the object in the photograph was a Stealth aircraft. He believes the whole story is a spoof – the same word he uses in a memo sent to MoD in December that year that I obtained using the Freedom of Information Act.

Baldwin says he was called in by a 3-star Lt General after the CIA sent one of the photographs to the Pentagon without informing them the source was UK MoD.

In the misunderstanding that followed, it emerged that the Pentagon believed the image actually depicted a RAF experimental aircraft developed using secret Stealth technology, shared with the British, without the knowledge of the US Government!

Baldwin believes the story – and the photographs – were the result of an elaborate hoax that briefly fooled the intelligence services.

He says the photographs – one of which he saw – depict ‘an airborne Loch Ness Monster’.

Content from External Source

https://drdavidclarke.co.uk/2021/07/31/the-ufo-that-never-was-the-calvine-photographs/

It's unclear if the senior RAF scientist (Donald) or the Air Commodore (Baldwin) used the dated term (as opposed to "hoax") first, but the other almost certainly used it later for continuity within the MoD. Common practice in the DoD, so I doubt the MoD would have been/is any different. Our Public Affairs folks in their (annual?) mandatory training preached this to us routinely.

Anyone on either side of the pond (US/UK) who's traveled to the other country and/or worked with their opposite numbers has almost certainly experienced the "two peoples separated by a common language" idiom. My question was originally posed as to whether this would have been a term in common use in the UK for the timeframe in question to describe a faked event. The question wasn't does a dictionary include a definition of the term that covers such an event.

@Vattic, who I assume is from the UK since he responded, answered the question and I was contend with his answer. As a result I didn't pursue the point thereafter. And, my apologies to @Vattic for not acknowledging his response, I thought I had given it a "thumbs up," but apparently not.