Claim: Original Calvine UFO Photo

I believe this is the exact mission you're referring to:


External Quote:

Early in the air campaign of Operation Desert Storm, the RAF must do a dangerous job. Panavia Tornado strike aircraft must maraud at low level through fierce Iraqi AAA and MANPAD fire to hit and disable Iraqi airfields. Given the most dangerous task of the campaign, losses are mounting.
I'll see if I can find any similar use of the Harrier.

To my knowledge, the airfield denial weapon I've talked about, the JP233, was not used operationally from the Harrier. I'm not even sure it was qualified for use on Harriers. We know it wasn't used in the Falklands, may not have been available at the time. The Sea Harriers/Harriers used against Stanley Airport were relatively ineffective in taking out runways. They knew this going in and that's why the Brits made the decision to resurrect what was left of their obsolescent Vulcan bomber force for the Black Buck raids.

I also forgot another common reason to fly low, especially low through valleys: to avoid enemy radar. (I think this is part of the plot of Top Gun Maverick :p)
That and flying nape-of-the-earth makes it difficult for ground based defenses to depress AAA and some SAM launcher low enough at longer ranges. Flying fast gives defenders less time to shoot when attackers get within range.
 
If it would be just the jet that was moving this would certainly be true. However the clouds are also moving. Capturing the image in the short window of time when the clouds align to make the mountain look like a diamond shaped object AND also capturing the jet would require quite some luck. Not impossible but rather unlikely.

If it's a mountain peak (which I don't think it is), it could just be a lucky shot - they were actually photographing the jet and saw the "UFO" once the film was developed. (I can't recall off the top of my head if the story goes that they went back to the hotel and told anyone that night they'd seen a UFO, but in any case we have no witnesses that they did).

Regarding the "tree"...
1726704653326.png


- it exactly matches where we'd expect to see the point of the near arm of a 3D star. The "snow" would be variation in the glitter coating (per Wim van Utrecht's theory and photography experiments).

1726704788206.png


I'm debating whether to buy this and try my own experiment. It's the closest I've seen (at a reasonable size) to the Calvine star and comes in a few even larger sizes, but I think 20cm should work. My only hesitation is that I don't know if it was a gold or silver star used, which might affect how close I can get the image to look. I'll dig out my dad's old Minolta and head out to the local hills. Closer to Xmas I might find it in the shops to avoid shipping, but then we're less likely to have overcast days here in the s. hemisphere.

1726705001333.png
 
I'll dig out my dad's old Minolta and head out to the local hills.

That's the real trick, using an old film camera and seeing if you can reproduce something similar in camera. Even using a DSLR where one can mess with all the parameters, it just doesn't have that "grain" that old film did. And there is always the argument that it was digitally manipulated.

That argument would still apply even if you did it all on film, because once you upload it for others to see, it's now digital. Still, I went looking for old film SLRs when I was spending way too much time trying to show the photo could have been created in camera with models and/or glass. I found them to be surprisingly expensive, at least here in the States.

Good luck and keep us posted. There's also the thread on Calvine hoaxes:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/calvine-photo-hoax-theories.12596
 
Back
Top