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.