it's not just trivial, it's meaningless, because the measurement of the jet in the photo is less accurate than that, and thus determines the (in)accuracy of the computation.
47'2" = 566"±½"
Wouldnt the defence dude who had the pic be able to confirm if it is him or not. He saw him didn't he at the time?
I'm fairly certain I would not be able to recognize someone I met once thirty-plus years ago when he was a juvenile.
My recollection is that there are legal protections for privacy issues as well in this case.
If you mean the press officer, he only talked to him on the phone.
I should have gone back and found where this has been discussed, was working on my phone with fat old man fingers and just couldn't face it!
Mike Bara, he of "Secret Space Program" and "Ancient Alien" fame, is espousing this theory? If Bara told me the sun was rising in the east, I'd go look to make sure.
This sound like the least likely scenario out of the many that have been discussed here. And when an article segues into the "men in black", it makes it even less likely that it's an honest attempt at an explanation, and more likely to be pure sensationalism.
Or a very similar location being found, I guess?
I notice the location and direction of view are not mentioned in the article.
To be clear it's not a theory I like. I think it's more likely models on string against overcast sky. However, I thought I'd look for stock images that had mountain, plane, and low cloud. I agree, in that photo there's a pretty clear straight line and no downward V shape.
The image used in the Daily Express article looks like it was made southwest of Calvine showing the Farragon Hill: https://maps.app.goo.gl/KYNJECuZMWEJtCEv9
Perhaps the tree line, or just how the hill looks from that angle? (if it is a hill, I'm not convinced).
If we assume for a second that this is actually the top of a mountain, the darker region on bottom could be the ridge of a hill in front of the mountain. There are a few darker pixels on the center "line" that could be interpreted as a tree standing on the ridge.
Unless getting a picture with the jet was intentional -- "Neat, a jet flying over the cloudy valley, let me grab a picture of that!" In which case it the timing is intentional, and not a split second coincidence.
It has very basic clouds in the gimbal sitch. But it's kind of hard wired. I could probably add more parameters. Actually that might be useful...
Rory mentioned quite at the start of the thread that it was not uncommon for planes to fly that low. However is that also true in situations where the valley is heavily clouded and the pilot is not able to see the ground? I have zero expertise in that area but maybe someone here has flight experience?
The topic of low flying jets in rural parts of Scotland (Perth and Kinross) was discussed in Parliament in 1989 and there was a campain by farmers (and a school neaer Tain RAF base - 100km North from Calvine) to have the number of flights reduced.
Source:https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commo...ribution-1dcb9581-56ef-423e-83e7-32775490b2e6External Quote:
Source: Daily Record 19 April 1989.
https://hansard.parliament.uk/commo...ribution-34b5961d-9580-4aba-aa60-a3e54fa9a854External Quote:
There was a discussion somewhere in these thousand-plus comments about groups of pilots in training liking to fly down the valleys. So it's not impossible that plane one is heard, plane two is seen, and planes three through six are photographed.
Flying through valleys or behind mountains is a common tactic to avoid hostile missiles and anti-aircraft, so it would at least be a reasonable possibility.
Agreed. It's called "train how you fight." As the article excerpt @Giddierone posted in #1226 above, the conventional wisdom in the Cold War was fly very low and very fast in combat situations. No one was better at this than the RAF. I talked to many USAFE pilots who told stories about flying at 500 ft-1000ft in F-4s and F-111s, only to see "those crazy Brits" flying under them in exercises. Most of those stories involved Buccaneers and Jaguars, however. Don't recall anyone mentioning Harriers.
If I'm reading your graph correctly, the linear distance between the witnesses/photographer and the jet looks to be about 500-600 meters. At that distance, and with the jet noise bouncing off the surrounding hills down in that valley, the noise generated (as heard by the witnesses) would have been very loud. So if there had been an actual object being photographed within your parameters, the claim by the witnesses that they heard no noise from it could be explained by echoing jet noise drowing out any other noise. If there was a second jet as has been claimed, it would have been even louder. (Videos below give an idea of noise levels in similar scenarios.) Thoughts?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow_Canyon_(California)External Quote:
That makes sense... IF the picture shows a mountain, then the story is essentially made up and details about what is claimed to have been experienced don't need further explanation. For example, the mountain could not have suddenly flown vertically out of sight!
Yes that would fit.
Yes I imagine the jet noise would have to be deafening in such a valley. You wouldn't have heard anything else I suppose.
Fully agree. I also think that the mountain top theory is not compatible with the original account.
Nice videos. I remember from my childhood that we also had low altitude training flights in Germany, sometimes breaking the sound barrier. I can only vaguely image the sound that would make in a valley with echos all over the place...
But wouldn't the sound come AFTER the plane?
Sure, I'm with you. What I said was, "IF there had been an actual object being photographed within your parameters," the jet noise could explain why they claimed to have not heard anything. Sorry if I confused you by putting a real object in the scenario you presented topographically relative to distance and locations. Sure, there is no noise to be made by a mountain top "floating" in the clouds/mist, but sounds like neither of us believe this explanation to be realistic.Yes that would fit.
Yes I imagine the jet noise would have to be deafening in such a valley. You wouldn't have heard anything else I suppose.
However I want to highlight that all these measurements are only valid if the "diamond" is actually the Farragon Hill seen from exactly this camera position. So if the diamond was actually some floating object then the positioning of the jet inside the valley, the distance between the camera and the jet and everything else mentioned in my previous posts would not apply.
That's why I think the reasoning that the noise of the jet inside the valley would drown out all noise from a floating object cannot be made. You either have a mountain top and know the position of the jet inside the valley OR you have a floating object and don't know the position of the jet.
But that said I guess a fighter jet flying by in the distance suggested be the original image does not need to be in a valley to drown out most other noises.
I believe this is the exact mission you're referring to:
I'll see if I can find any similar use of the Harrier.External Quote:
)My apologies, that was a misunderstanding on my side. I did miss the significance of these constraints. Of course now it makes sense.
I found several pages on that domain that are still working, e.g.:
