Claim: Original Calvine UFO Photo

[FatPhil]

technically speaking, the LIZ refers to the property of certain classes of sensors to have a distance above which the sensor can detect something is there, but not resolve it enough to identify it. It's a literal zone.
The Calvine UFO is not in that zone (though the "Harrier" is right on the edge) because we can confidently say that the diamond-shaped thing is not like any known aircraft.

Perhaps the nomenclature needs more precision? Excluding situations where we have so little information that there remains a whole host of completely different possibilities just because you want to include situations where there's not enough information to say anything meaningful at all seems to be putting undue pressure on the word "low", as it does fit the former perhaps even better than it does the latter. Should the latter be demoted to "ZIZ", the "zero information zone"? Or "NIZ", the "negligible information zone"?

 

[Mendel]

Perhaps the nomenclature needs more precision?

From the post I linked:

• LIZ - Low Information Zone - A region of low information - either OOF, TFA, low-resolution video, JAL, bad EWAs, etc. UFOs are unidentified because they stay just inside the LIZ.
• TFA - Too Far Away. Something unidentified because it is too far away. Most UFOs are TFAs
• OOF - Out Of Focus. Something unidentified because it's blurry, TFAs are frequently OOF.
• EWA - Eye-Witness Account. Something unidentified because of an unverifiable story.
• SoFA - Small or Far Away. Something unidentified because the distance (and hence size) is not immediately apparent. Most commonly a fly, but also birds. Usually OOF. (Previously I used "SFA" but people read that as "Sweet F*** All", so I added the "o")
• JAL - Just a light - A UFO photo or video that's a black background with just a light. The lack of contextual information in the video prevents identification.

Further down that thread, I posted some examples using IR camera images. I think including EWA is arguable, but the general idea is "there was something, but we don't have enough to go on to identify it".

Calvine is most likely not identifiable because the story that went with it is false.

 

[Charlie Wiser]

47:39
in bushes or behind trees or something in the wood and sat and looked at this thing which
47:45
just simply sat in the sky

...

and they waited another minute or two wondering what the hell to do and at that point they
48:45
at some point in this thing they sort of stuck the camera out behind wherever it was they were
48:50
hiding shot off it turned out to be six frames and um

It's not plausible to me that the witnesses waited several minutes before they started taking pictures. Or, if they'd started taking pictures immediately, that they didn't use up the entire roll before the jets appeared minutes later.

They didn't know the jets were going to appear. So why not keep snapping the craft until the roll was used up?

Note that a freelancer who claimed to have seen all 6 images at the Record when he dropped by the office says the famous photo was in the middle of the 6 shots taken, with the others showing the jets in different positions and some with no jets at all. And that the MoD report says a second jet is just about visible in another of the shots. Whether or not we take these testimonies into account, it's still implausible that the photographers would take up to 4 or 5 shots (but no more) of the craft by itself, not knowing the jets were on their way, and then just stop shooting until the jets fortuitously arrived on the scene. This sighting would've been absolutely stunning to behold - and with no indication the craft was going to move, or that something else exciting (i.e. jets) was about to happen, why not take as many photos as possible?

 

[Mendel]

They didn't know the jets were going to appear. So why not keep snapping the craft until the roll was used up?

But why? I'd take 2 pictures of the same scene, tops, maybe one. Once the jets show up, it's different because they'rd in motion, and I couldn't be sure I had a good picture of them, so I'd take several.
It would also depend on how many exposures I had left on that roll, and whether I brought any spares.

 

[Mauro]

But why? I'd take 2 pictures of the same scene, tops, maybe one. Once the jets show up, it's different because they'rd in motion, and I couldn't be sure I had a good picture of them, so I'd take several.
It would also depend on how many exposures I had left on that roll, and whether I brought any spares.

I guess behaviours could be variable. Personally, I'd have taken about half a roll of the object when first seen, probably changing a little the exposure and tweaking focus, trying to make sure I got at least some 'good' pictures (it was not so easy to get good pictures in the film era, and you could not check, and the occasion was extraordinary), then waited for anything to happen (and taking some more pictures now and then). Taking just two pictures of an extraordinary sight, then wait, seems strange to me, but possible. It very much depends on the experience (and possibly on the wallet) of the photographer. The more an evolved amateur, the more pictures he would have taken immediately.

 

[JMartJr]

I'd take 2 pictures of the same scene, tops, maybe one. Once the jets show up, it's different because they'rd in motion, and I couldn't be sure I had a good picture of them, so I'd take several.

Yeah, but... in them dim dark predigital days, you couldn't be sure you had a good picture "in the can" at all. For something that important, you'd have to balance the need to make sure you gt at least one good pic with the fact that you had few available exposures. Just me, but if I saw what is claimed that THEY saw, I'd have shot "a handful" of pics right away, as you are not going to be sure if it is going to hang around long and you want to be sure you get something.

Taking just two pictures of an extraordinary sight, then wait, seems strange to me, but possible.

I suppose one might be too surprised to start taking pics right away, then suddenly think, "Oh, wait, %$*&^, I should be taking pictures!"

But FWIW, as somebody who took some fake UFO pics once back in my late-childhood, featuring the lid of a tuna fish can on a string, two seemed a good number. Since no Harrier turned up (or the equivalent) we stopped there.

It very much depends on the experience (and possibly on the wallet) of the photographer.

Yeah, taking pics was not free back in the day. I'd also think it would depend on how many pics were left on the roll. If I only had , say, six exposures left, I might grab a couple of quick ones then wait in case anything else happened, to be sure to have some film available if Zorgnax and Spooptie decided to land and ask for directions, or the Mother Ship showed up, or whatever. If that were the case, if they reserved some shots "just in case," the arrival of some jest would qualify as "something else happening," I'd think.

 

[Mendel]

the arrival of some jest

you've been reading the "Debunking Humor" thread, haven't you?

 

[NorCal Dave]

It's not plausible to me that the witnesses waited several minutes before they started taking pictures. Or, if they'd started taking pictures immediately, that they didn't use up the entire roll before the jets appeared minutes later.

They didn't know the jets were going to appear. So why not keep snapping the craft until the roll was used up?

Agreed, the story makes little sense. I think we've established that.

According to Linsday's recollection of the witness's account, they saw the craft for "two to three minutes" before they heard the sound of an aircraft. That aircraft "went by going North" and presumably left the scene. Then "a minute or two later" they hear it again and it returns, or it's a different one, and it's the second time that it "circled...anti-clock wise" "maybe three or four times" before it heads off.

So, we have the Harrier come by twice. It's unclear if it's the same Harrier or 2 different ones. There is no indication that there were 2 different jets flying by at the same time, rather it's 1 fly by and gone, then a return or different Harrier for few laps.

This description is, I think, consistent with Linsday's perception that the pilot had "seen the same thing" that the witnesses did. He seems to think that the pilot was buzzing by and saw the UFO, then returned and circled it a few times to check it out. Thus, his recollection confirms this. What it doesn't do, is confirm Clarke's notion that the Harrier(s) was "escorting" the secret aircraft, quite the opposite.

At some point in this event, the photos are taken.

It is the days before digital cameras where common, so they may have limited by the amount of exposures left on the camera. Even if they had extra film, it's still a bit cumbersome to change over to a new roll. IF any of this story is remotely accurate, only getting 6 photos seems reasonable for a film camera of the time. We have no idea why they had a camera with them in this version of the story. All the ideas about why they had a camera is speculation.

Note that a freelancer who claimed to have seen all 6 images at the Record when he dropped by the office says the famous photo was in the middle of the 6 shots taken, with the others showing the jets in different positions and some with no jets at all.

That's Stuart Little, like the mouse. The problem is, he's admitting that he spent around 15 minutes with these photos over 30 years ago. Everything he says, basically parrots what was publicly available:

• Robinson, at the time, had declared the photos to have been taken on Ilford XP B&W film, Little confirmed Ilford XP B&W film. Robenson later changed his mind, saying it was not Ilford XP, but basic B&W film stock. The MoD documents say it was color film stock.
• Linsday claimed that at some point he went to London and saw all 6 photos, with the Harrier in different positions, Little says the Harrier was in different positions.
• Linsday claimed that the Daily Record made him a print of the best of the 6 photos, Little says this is the best of the 6 photos.

I think Little, IF he actually saw the photos back in 1990, has possibly confabulated what he thinks he saw with what he had recently heard/read about the photos. There is nothing new in his recollections, and his confirming the use of Ilford XP B&W film, which is very unlikely, shows he was confusing the recent with the past.

 

[Mauro]

It is the days before digital cameras where common, so they may have limited by the amount of exposures left on the camera.

Yes, and in this case the 1 (confirmed) to 6 (maybe) 'UFO' pictures would have been the last ones on the roll.

Btw, it's difficult the last 6 pictures will all fall in the last strip once the negative is developed and cut, because rolls came in sizes multiple of 6 (usually 36 of 24 exposures) but there was always some spare roll at the end and one got 38-39 or even 40 pictures out of a 36 exposures roll. The negatives were usually cut in strips 6 exposures long, so the last pictures were in a shorter strip at the end (and usually the very last picture was only partial and cut halfway).

Changing a roll was actually a simple thing (30 seconds time), but they might not have had a spare one if they were casual photographers.

All this, of course, supposing at least some part of the story is true as has been told (which I very much doubt).

 

[Andreas]

It is the days before digital cameras where common, so they may have limited by the amount of exposures left on the camera.

And we must remember that we know close to nothing about what the witness actually claimed when it comes to his own actions. Honestly, we don't know how many pictures were actually taken. The handwritten PM doesn't specify how many photos "Russell" claimed to have taken. Even if the witness's story were true (which, of course, I don't believe), he could have shot a whole bunch of frames. We only know that six negatives were handed over. Theoretically, they could have been the "best" ones from a larger batch, all showing the same stationary object. In other words, "Russell" may have simply chosen to hand over some negatives while keeping the rest.

I don't think that's what happened, obviously, but to be fair, it's a possibility—especially since we know next to nothing about what "Russell" actually said to Lindsay.

 

[JMartJr]

Btw, it's difficult the last 6 pictures will all fall in the last strip once the negative is developed and cut, because rolls came in sizes multiple of 6 (usually 36 of 24 exposures) but there was always some spare roll at the end and one got 38-39 or even 40 pictures out of a 36 exposures roll. The negatives were usually cut in strips 6 exposures long, so the last pictures were in a shorter strip at the end (and usually the very last picture was only partial and cut halfway).

But presumably, if they developed their own film as hobbyists, they could have made the cut anywhere they wanted...

 

[Mauro]

But presumably, if they developed their own film as hobbyists, they could have made the cut anywhere they wanted...

Of course, but if they were hobbyists with an own dark room this opens a whole new can of worms. Provided at least the initial part of the story is true, it becomes improbable they only took a few pictures and improbable they did not have a spare roll.

At a more fundamental level, it also means they knew how to use their camera to get a certain effect (say, overexposing the picture), and they knew how to manipulate pictures in the dark room, which opens up a lot of ways with which the photo could have been faked.

 

[John J.]

There is no indication that there were 2 different jets flying by at the same time

Not from the claimed eyewitnesses, but the MoD minute of 14 September 1990 (National Archives DEFE 24/1940/1) says

The negatives have been considered by the relevant staffs who have established that the jet aircraft is a Harrier (and also identified a barely visible second aircraft, again probably a Harrier)...

I think this is interesting, and possibly relevant:
If the whole Calvine photo is a faked scene, it seems odd that the claimants didn't mention two aircraft after going to the trouble of hanging them both from branches (or whatever technique was used).
It might imply that the claimant(s) who approached the Daily Record weren't the source of the pictures, and they hadn't noticed the presence of a second jet in the photos.

A similar possibility might be that the Calvine scene is based on genuine photos, without UFO, of a Harrier flypast- as @Andreas points out, where the photo was taken is almost irrelevant (from the standpoint of the hoaxers), there's nothing in it that is identifiably "Calvine", Perth and Kinross or Scotland- and the "UFO" was added. The hoaxers, whether they were the two young men or not, simply used those photos as a conveniently blurry (and hard to locate) scene with jets; they didn't examine them in detail and missed the second jet. After all, they know they're making a hoax, so wouldn't have the curiosity of people who think they've captured photos of a UFO.
Against this is that neither the MoD or Andrew Robinson (photography lecturer at Sheffield Hallam University, known to David Clarke) noticed any signs of photographic tampering.

 

[John J.]

...but there was always some spare roll at the end and one got 38-39 or even 40 pictures out of a 36 exposures roll.

Good grief, I'd entirely forgotten that.
Makes me feel old.

 

[John J.]

It's not plausible to me that the witnesses waited several minutes before they started taking pictures.

I'm not sure that this aspect of the witness account is massively implausible in itself, in terms of the account's internal consistency.
We're told (by Lindsay) the two men were startled by a large, silent hovering object and hid. They might have frozen, scared to make any movement that might betray their presence. Perception of the passage of time is notoriously unreliable when people are scared or feel they are in a threatening situation; maybe what felt like minutes was thirty or forty seconds.

But there are many reasons to find the account implausible, not least the almost non-existent provenance and inability to question the claimed witnesses, the claimed appearance and behaviour of a large flying object not seen by anyone else, and the likelihood that no Harriers were present in the area.

 

[Ann K]

Good grief, I'd entirely forgotten that.
Makes me feel old.

Developing charges usually made me wait until a roll was completely finished before removing it from the camera. There were occasions in which I found I had two different Christmases on a single roll!

 

[JMartJr]

It might imply that the claimant(s) who approached the Daily Record weren't the source of the pictures, and they hadn't noticed the presence of a second jet in the photos.

Of course, a "barely visible" second plane -- less clear than the one in the pic we have -- has an even greater possibility of not being a plane at all, but a bird/bug/floating bit of gradoo/etc. that looks enough like a plane to be called one by a viewer handed a picture and told it contained a UFO and planes...

 

[John J.]

Of course, a "barely visible" second plane -- less clear than the one in the pic we have -- has an even greater possibility of not being a plane at all, but a bird/bug/floating bit of gradoo/etc. that looks enough like a plane to be called one by a viewer handed a picture and told it contained a UFO and planes...

But the "relevant staffs" who received the pictures were told (if they were told anything) that the witnesses claimed to have seen one plane. AFAIK Craig Lindsay also had that impression.
They were not looking for more planes, but apparently found one, and described it as "probably" a Harrier.

The Calvine photo Lindsay kept, the photo we're familiar with, might have had the best image of the UFO but not of the plane.
Or maybe the other plane images were equally bad, but in combination contained enough information- perhaps a wing a bit clearer in one image, tailfin in another- for an identification to be made. Speculation on my part though.

 

[Andreas]

At a more fundamental level, it also means they knew how to use their camera to get a certain effect (say, overexposing the picture), and they knew how to manipulate pictures in the dark room, which opens up a lot of ways with which the photo could have been faked.

It's worth remembering that even Robinson, who otherwise seems to be open to the idea that this could be a huge anomalous craft, argues that the photographer was probably knowledgeable about photography. He concluded:

https://shura.shu.ac.uk/32102/1/calvine_ufo_photographic_analysis_v4.pdf

"The use of either traditional B/W or XP-1 film would suggest that the photographer was both interested and knowledgeable about photography . . . During the late C20th black and white practice was closely linked to traditional documentary practice…"

So, possibly an experienced photographer. (Why not someone working as a press photographer at a tabloid—let's say the Daily Record…) But this leaves us with a problem: why is the photo so darn bad? And if this one is bad, then all the shots taken at the same time would be just as bad, since this is supposedly the best one.

A quick online search turns up plenty of photos of distant planes taken on Tri-X or HP5 by hobbyists using old camera equipment. The results? Stunning.

And these are just small crops from larger scenes, which often look something like this.

Then we have the Calvine photo—shot by a supposedly knowledgeable photographer using a type of film known for producing beautiful images full of contrast and detail—and it's (like all "ufo photos") nothing but a bleak, blurry nothing.

The hoaxers, whether they were the two young men or not, simply used those photos as a conveniently blurry (and hard to locate) scene with jets; they didn't examine them in detail and missed the second jet. After all, they know they're making a hoax, so wouldn't have the curiosity of people who think they've captured photos of a UFO.
Against this is that neither the MoD or Andrew Robinson (photography lecturer at Sheffield Hallam University, known to David Clarke) noticed any signs of photographic tampering.

It's definitely possible that someone simply used a series of photos showing a jet passing by and later added the "UFO" in the darkroom. I think there's a reason why Robinson didn't notice any signs of that. I've been in contact with an experienced photographer and photography historian about this. I'll post his speculations as soon as I get replies to some of my follow-up questions.

 

[Andreas]

I made a size comparison collage to illustrate why the claims made by Robinson in his photographic analysis are so hard to accept. He concludes:

https://shura.shu.ac.uk/32102/1/calvine_ufo_photographic_analysis_v4.pdf

"…an approximate length of between 30 m and 40 m and a height of between 8 m and 12 meters can be calculated for the object."

This collage shows what Robinson's "conclusion" would imply. (I made the "ufo" 35 meters since Robinson said 30-40 meters +/- 10%) To me, it doesn't really matter how much one analyzes details in the photograph or tries to estimate the distance to various objects. The idea that something this large could have flown over Scotland without a single witness (except for "Russell") coming forward to report seeing it seems extremely unlikely.

 

[FatPhil]

But this leaves us with a problem: why is the photo so darn bad?

Regarding deliberate reduction of grain-related tells, by deliberate reduction of visual quality of the whole image, on another thread (or this one, it was a resposne to wolfie pointing out that anyone armed with loupe would be able to see the joins), I was snooving towards it being a fake. But as you correctly highlight, more and more is pointing towards it being a surprisingly bad image, which just reinforces the idea that it's deliberately bad. Which reinforces it being a hoax. Posteriors pointing resolutely in that direction. Mine, at least. Of course, many of the possible fakeing techniques still remain open - what tell were they trying to cover up?

 

[FatPhil]

This collage shows what Robinson's "conclusion" would imply. (I made the "ufo" 35 meters since Robinson said 30-40 meters +/- 10%) To me, it doesn't really matter how much one analyzes details in the photograph or tries to estimate the distance to various objects. The idea that something this large could have flown over Scotland without a single witness (except for "Russell") coming forward to report seeing it seems extremely unlikely.

If you imagine the craft is compact, there's no way something so bulky could remain aloft without so much active downward thrust there'd be flattened trees like a tornado went through the area. So you'd need to stick some wings on it, ones that disappear due to the perspective (but those almost elsewhere else in 3D space would have a great view). However, even then there's a square-cube law in play, and the wake and turbulence, and noise, would be the first thing you'd notice. The only way such a size would make sense is if non-existent physics exists, and I'm happy to dismiss that as beyond marginal.

 

[Mauro]

So, possibly an experienced photographer. (Why not someone working as a press photographer at a tabloid—let's say the Daily Record…) But this leaves us with a problem: why is the photo so darn bad?

In my late teens (later 70s-early 80s) I was a rather experienced photographer. I used my father's equipment of course, I could not afford a camera myself, but we used a top 35mm camera, a Contax RTS, with a set of objectives and accessories. I took mostly macro colour pictures (diapositives), while my father also took many B&W photographs (using Ilford films, btw), which he developed in a small home darkroom (he also bought a 6x6 camera later).

One thing I learned soon is that I could expect to throw away more than half of the pictures taken, and get a really 'good' picture say every 4 or 5. Remember, there was no feedback at that time, one saw what the photo actually looked like after days. So with an interesting subject I always took more than two pictures, trying to change the parameters and hoping for the best (this was not always easy, some subjects stay rather steady, but butterflies and lizards were really hard).

So I don't think it's strange the picture is bad, even if the photographer was experienced. Actually, I'd say the picture being bad is expected (by chance or by design), because if it weren't there would probably be no mystery.

And if this one is bad, then all the shots taken at the same time would be just as bad, since this is supposedly the best one.

Very probably. Now, supposed there really were 6 pictures in total, the question for me is why we only have one (a copy, actually, and cropped, on top of that), and why the provenance is uncertain and impossible to verify. I take this as evidence that informations have been purposefully hidden/obfuscated in order to create a mystery where there was none (and in this case, the picture we have is the 'best' one in the sense of being the most mysterious and inexplicable...). I feel rather confident that if we had the remaining pictures (and maybe even if we just had the original uncropped shot) a reliable explanation could be worked out, and it'll be as discussed her on Metabunk: 'hoax', on a spectrum from fully staged (darkroom tricks, hanging models, figures on glass...) to 'lucky shot of a hillock reflected in a loch and something fuzzy in a corner'. By the way, I have reduced the probability of this last explanation (pure lucky shot) in my mind, because having the fence and the hillock +- in focus while the 'jet' is out of focus should be possible only if the 'jet' is nearer to the camera than the fence. I'm not 100% sure of this, it's hard to gauge what is in focus and what is not, but this effect would be easy to get with a hanging model or a sticker on a glass, but improbable to get randomly (the 'jet' should have been a bug flying near the camera at that exact momen, much less probable than, say, a rowing boat on the lake).

So at the moment my personal explanation is 'fully staged hoax' (both the UFO and the jet are models/darkroom tricks) or, with a somewhat lower probability, a 'semi-staged hoax' (the UFO is a hillock reflected in a lake, the jet is a model/darkroom trick). But I may be quite wrong on the focus argument, so take this with a great pinch of salt.

 

[Mendel]

By the way, I have reduced the probability of this last explanation (pure lucky shot) in my mind, because having the fence and the hillock +- in focus while the 'jet' is out of focus should be possible only if the 'jet' is nearer to the camera than the fence.

if it's dusk, the aperture might be fully open to admit enough light on a short enough exposure time to capture the jet, and then a 10m focus may not reach to infinity?

but since the UFO is in the center and immobile, the focus should really be there (assuming the photographer remembered to adjust the focus).

but we don't even know the camera model, so...

 

[Mendel]

My headcanon is that they went to a lonely spot in the Cairngorns to take "artistic pictures", which would explain a) the camera and the b/w film, and b) the "poaching" cover story for why they can't show the rest of the film. Pure speculation, of course, and really only fits well with the "accidental UFO" hypotheses, not the prepared hoax.

c) explains the delay in getting to the camera (hide and get dressed were priorities)
d) explains why the focus may have been close (as would poaching pictures)

 

[Andreas]

So I don't think it's strange the picture is bad, even if the photographer was experienced. Actually, I'd say the picture being bad is expected (by chance or by design), because if it weren't there would probably be no mystery.

Yeah, I agree. I just find it a bit strange that all the photos turned out so poorly. But you might be right—the "best" one might, in this case, simply mean the most mysterious rather than the clearest. And as a photo editor at a newspaper, you'd probably choose the "coolest-looking" one rather than the one that best shows what we're actually looking at.

So at the moment my personal explanation is 'fully staged hoax' (both the UFO and the jet are models/darkroom tricks)

I think you're right. Honestly, I'm leaning more and more toward some kind of post-production manipulation. Robinson makes a big deal about not finding any signs of tampering, but I bet there are ways to hide such details. If, say, Lindsay's photo wasn't made from the original negative but from a negative created from a paper copy, wouldn't that obscure a lot of details and create new grain patterns? And wouldn't it even affect the conclusion about what type of film was used to take the original photo?

 

[Andreas]

If you imagine the craft is compact, there's no way something so bulky could remain aloft without so much active downward thrust there'd be flattened trees like a tornado went through the area. So you'd need to stick some wings on it, ones that disappear due to the perspective (but those almost elsewhere else in 3D space would have a great view). However, even then there's a square-cube law in play, and the wake and turbulence, and noise, would be the first thing you'd notice. The only way such a size would make sense is if non-existent physics exists, and I'm happy to dismiss that as beyond marginal.

Yeah, I just don't understand how this could be a genuine flying craft—it just doesn't make sense. Could there be wings hidden by the perspective? Sure, it's possible, but still. An unknown craft the size of a passenger liner? And somehow still completely unknown to the public more than three decades later? It just doesn't add up.

Unless, of course, it was some kind of lighter-than-air object, and the photographer made up the story about how it behaved. But even then, it doesn't make sense that no one else saw the "object." A 35-meter balloon would have been quite a sight.

 

[JMartJr]

But the "relevant staffs" who received the pictures were told (if they were told anything) that the witnesses claimed to have seen one plane. AFAIK Craig Lindsay also had that impression.

Fair enough, but if they then noted a second something-or-other that was harder to make out, I'd think they'd be more likely to suspect it was another plane, since they'd been primed to think they were seeing real things in the real sky, one of which was supposed to be a plane. If they were identifying the blurred thing in the pic we have as being a Harrier, I'd suggest the pareidolia was to some extent in play. If the witnesses did in fact only report seeing one plane, but the relevant staff saw two, that would hint that either the witnesses were in error, certainly possible, or that the staff saw a bird-blur or the like and made a false assumption that it was a plane.

 

[JMartJr]

The only way such a size would make sense is if non-existent physics exists

Or it's lighter than air. Or a kite I guess, kites are quiet, but nothing about it suggest "kite" to me.

 

[JMartJr]

if it's dusk, the aperture might be fully open to admit enough light on a short enough exposure time to capture the jet, and then a 10m focus may not reach to infinity?

In which case I congratulate the photographer on their steadiness of hand in an emotionally stimulating and exciting moment.

 

[Mauro]

if it's dusk, the aperture might be fully open to admit enough light on a short enough exposure time to capture the jet, and then a 10m focus may not reach to infinity?

but since the UFO is in the center and immobile, the focus should really be there (assuming the photographer remembered to adjust the focus).

The impression I get is the 'UFO' is rather far away, at 'infinity' (and well lighted), while the fence is nearer (and in shadow, so the sun is shining from the back of the picture, from above a slope, or trees which keep the fence shaded). So the focal depth should go from the fence to infinity (whatever the numerical aperture of the iris) and, if the 'jet' is between the fence and the UFO it should be in focus too. But it's blurry, so it must be nearer to the camera than the fence, or the blurriness is due to something else which I cannot identify (it does not look at all as a motion blur, maybe fog could explain it, but then we'd need again some exceptional conditions).

It might be that the 'UFO' is not at infinity but is relatively near, then the focal depth would go from the fence to the 'UFO' and the 'jet' could be further away and out of focus. It's a strange (read: unprobable) combination of parameters to me, but I cannot exclude it.

But it's very difficult to say what is in focus and what is not, so in the end I'm not sure at all.

but we don't even know the camera model, so...

Yeah, just knowing the focal length of the objective would be something already. The most common objective for 35mm format had a focal length of 50mm, other possibilities I see are a small wideangle (say, 35-28mm) or a small tele (100-135mm), but they were not widespread (and one needed to have a camera with interchangeable objectives to start with, then again pointing to an amateur who knew what he was doing). Were the picture not cropped the focal length could be calculated using the fence dimensions as a reference, but with the cropped picture we have the margin of error is easily greater than -50% +100% and makes this exercise almost useless (and then it says nothing about the distances and sizes of the 'UFO' and the 'jet').

 

[John J.]

If the witnesses did in fact only report seeing one plane, but the relevant staff saw two, that would hint that either the witnesses were in error, certainly possible, or that the staff saw a bird-blur or the like and made a false assumption that it was a plane.

-Or hoaxers used pre-existing low-quality photos showing a Harrier flying past, but- because they didn't forensically examine the photos- they didn't realise a second aircraft was present. They based their account on what they thought was in the photos.

I'm not confident this is particularly likely though; I still feel (from a position of knowing very little about photography) that without professional opinions otherwise* I'd give Andrew Robinson and JARIC the benefit of the doubt in their (separate) abilities to detect photo manipulation.

*...at the moment

 

[Andreas]

I've been so focused on the "UFO" and the "jet" that I haven't really taken a closer look at the other details in the picture. Has anyone positively identified the "plant" in the lower left corner? I'm sure this has been discussed before, but I couldn't find anything.

To me, this doesn't look like a bush at all—it looks very much like a branch of Scots pine close to the camera. And aren't there even some pinecones visible? (Or maybe I'm just imagining things?)

If it is a Scots pine branch, it must be significantly closer to the camera than the fence. It should be possible to estimate its distance, as the needles of an average Scots pine are between 3–6 cm long. However, it's difficult to determine their exact length in the picture since they overlap. But the exact distance isn't as important as confirming that the branch is nearby while the fence is much farther away.

Visually comparing the branch and the fence, the fence appears to be more out of focus than the branch. This suggests that the focal point is somewhere between the branch and the fence. If that's the case, then the "UFO" is likely somewhere between the branch and the fence—or possibly even closer to the camera than the branch itself. It's difficult to say for certain since it's hard to determine which object is the least out of focus.

A key takeaway here is that everything we can confidently identify in the photograph is relatively close—the branches at the top, the branch in the bottom left corner, and the fence. Everything else is either unknown (since we don't actually know what the "UFO" or "jet" is) or just a blurry pattern that's difficult to distinguish from the clouds.

Considering the pine branch, I'm increasingly convinced that this was taken on a cloudy, possibly foggy day, with small silhouettes placed on a sheet of glass close to the camera.

I haven't had time to fully think this through, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. But doesn't a relatively sharp nearby pine branch suggest that the "UFO" is also close to the camera?

 

[Matt33]

Has anyone positively identified the "plant" in the lower left corner?

To me, this doesn't look like a bush at all

I think it has some resemblance to evergreen broom. Here is a Street View from the area near Calvine:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/WSDXg9va1Zq3iDqCA

 

[Ann K]

Visually comparing the branch and the fence, the fence appears to be more out of focus than the branch. This suggests that the focal point is somewhere between the branch and the fence. If that's the case, then the "UFO" is likely somewhere between the branch and the fence—or possibly even closer to the camera than the branch itself. It's difficult to say for certain since it's hard to determine which object is the least out of focus.

Or it could have been taken by someone without a tripod, and not very good at keeping the camera steady. If the hour is late and the lighting is poor, it might be a rather long exposure.

 

[Mauro]

I've been so focused on the "UFO" and the "jet" that I haven't really taken a closer look at the other details in the picture. Has anyone positively identified the "plant" in the lower left corner? I'm sure this has been discussed before, but I couldn't find anything.
View attachment 78404
To me, this doesn't look like a bush at all—it looks very much like a branch of Scots pine close to the camera. And aren't there even some pinecones visible? (Or maybe I'm just imagining things?)

Yes, it could be a Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.), even if a well-developed branch so low over the ground is strange (but possible), but it could also be a lot of other plants, for instance the common reed, Phragmites australis:

CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=195751

Or a Poacea, Cyperacea, Juncacea... any plant with elongated leaves, lots of possibilities. The branches on top are similarly unidentifiable, Ulmus (elm), Alnus (alder), Betula (birch), Salix (willow) come to my mind but yet again they could be anything (the leftmost branch, even a Larix (larch, no idea if those grow in Scotland ).

If it is a Scots pine branch, it must be significantly closer to the camera than the fence. It should be possible to estimate its distance, as the needles of an average Scots pine are between 3–6 cm long. However, it's difficult to determine their exact length in the picture since they overlap. But the exact distance isn't as important as confirming that the branch is nearby while the fence is much farther away.

Pinus sylvestris needles are indeed 30-60mm on average and can reach up to 100mm (taken from an Italian textbook). But in any case I agree with you, the branch in the lower left is nearer than the fence. How much far, though, I wouldn't dare to say.

View attachment 78405
Visually comparing the branch and the fence, the fence appears to be more out of focus than the branch. This suggests that the focal point is somewhere between the branch and the fence. If that's the case, then the "UFO" is likely somewhere between the branch and the fence—or possibly even closer to the camera than the branch itself. It's difficult to say for certain since it's hard to determine which object is the least out of focus.

Yes, it's very difficult given the general quality of the picture. To me the fence looks more in focus than the branches, but it's just an opinion, and if it's the other way around then the 'UFO' is nearer than the fence, as you say.

A key takeaway here is that everything we can confidently identify in the photograph is relatively close—the branches at the top, the branch in the bottom left corner, and the fence. Everything else is either unknown (since we don't actually know what the "UFO" or "jet" is) or just a blurry pattern that's difficult to distinguish from the clouds.

Considering the pine branch, I'm increasingly convinced that this was taken on a cloudy, possibly foggy day, with small silhouettes placed on a sheet of glass close to the camera.

If no reflection is involved, then the background is probably the sky. It could have been uniformly cloudy (and overexposed) but I think it could also have been a blue sky, washed to white by the overexposition. If a reflection is involved then the background is water, washed to white as before, seen from some meters up and looking down.

What I'm 'rather' confident is that the contrast between the fence and the background implies the sun was shining (possibly above a not-too-thick cloud cover) and was at the back of the photographer, with the fence kept in shadow by something (sloping ground, trees, a building...). So if the picture was taken in the afternoon/early evening it's looking East-ish (say +- 60 degrees from true East?).

I haven't had time to fully think this through, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. But doesn't a relatively sharp nearby pine branch suggest that the "UFO" is also close to the camera?

My main objection would be that with the light coming from the back and something which keeps the fence shaded a nearby 'UFO' should be in shade too (unless they used a small flash pointed on the 'UFO', but a flash would make it difficult to hide the glass or the string from which the UFO model hangs. Not impossible, in any case).

 

[Charlie Wiser]

This collage shows what Robinson's "conclusion" would imply. (I made the "ufo" 35 meters since Robinson said 30-40 meters +/- 10%) To me, it doesn't really matter how much one analyzes details in the photograph or tries to estimate the distance to various objects. The idea that something this large could have flown over Scotland without a single witness (except for "Russell") coming forward to report seeing it seems extremely unlikely.

The fact that Robinson also allows for the possibility that a model was used renders his conclusions null and void anyway - in that his confidence level for the "30-40 meters" must be vanishingly small. Clarke gave him the photo to analyse, and no doubt the story that came with it, so he was apparently (for reasons unknown, but being put on the spot by a colleague comes to mind) predisposed to find that the object was huge.

 

[Charlie Wiser]

If you imagine the craft is compact, there's no way something so bulky could remain aloft without so much active downward thrust there'd be flattened trees like a tornado went through the area. So you'd need to stick some wings on it, ones that disappear due to the perspective (but those almost elsewhere else in 3D space would have a great view). However, even then there's a square-cube law in play, and the wake and turbulence, and noise, would be the first thing you'd notice. The only way such a size would make sense is if non-existent physics exists, and I'm happy to dismiss that as beyond marginal.

The craft shot vertically upward at high speed, which requires even more thrust. All of which supports the theory that this was an experimental black project craft utilizing anti-gravity. Prove me wrong.

 

[Andreas]

even if a well-developed branch so low over the ground is strange

I'd say low branches on Pinus sylvestris aren't uncommon at all—quite the opposite, actually.

but it could also be a lot of other plants, for instance the common reed, Phragmites australis:

It doesn't look like any kind of reed. To me, it's clearly a branch with some type of needles or leaves attached, which pretty much rules out all types of reed.

The branches on top are similarly unidentifiable

Yeah, the branches at the top edge of the image are definitely from two different types of trees. I'd say the one on the right looks a lot like a common birch.

The other one is often said to be a pine tree. I'm not sure, of course, but a mix of pine and birch trees is common.

My main objection would be that with the light coming from the back and something which keeps the fence shaded a nearby 'UFO' should be in shade too (unless they used a small flash pointed on the 'UFO', but a flash would make it difficult to hide the glass

I get your objections. I agree that the sun is probably coming from behind, but I think the person holding the sheet of glass is standing outside the shadow, likely several meters in front of the fence. After experimenting with small cardboard silhouettes on a sheet of glass, I realized how important it was to keep the glass in the light to achieve the right contrast for the small "UFO." If it were lit from the front, it would just look like a solid black diamond-shaped silhouette.

In other words, we'd be looking at something like this:

 

[deirdre]

I'm sure this has been discussed before, but I couldn't find anything.

in the search box you can chose "this thread" to help find stuff (not that its a problem to discuss it again years later)

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/claim-original-calvine-ufo-photo.12571/post-277051