Claim: Original Calvine UFO Photo

[John J.]

...to me, it almost looks as if someone (Lindsay?) took a photocopy, traced the UFO and jet with a pen to make them more visible, and then sent it via fax. (And in the process, making it more "Harrier like".

I think the issue of priming- raising expectations that the picture includes a Harrier, therefore that's what is "seen"- is important.
However, if Lindsay wanted the picture to be investigated (and thought there was a chance of this happening), and deliberately doctored the image to that end, he must have been taking a significant chance; he must have considered that the original photos/ negatives might be requested.
Maybe the photo he photocopied wasn't the one he kept, but over the years he forgot he had more than one.
Or maybe just random 1980s photocopy weirdness? <Admittedly perhaps not the best technical explanation.
But yes, the left (possible) tailplane and (possible) wing are more evident in the photocopies.

 

[JMartJr]

I think the issue of priming- raising expectations that the picture includes a Harrier, therefore that's what is "seen"- is important.

Yes! 10,000 times yes!

 

[Mendel]

Could this be an artifact caused by the copying process?

Remember that we don't have the original photograph. What we have is a scan, made with certain settings. (And I can't open the TIFF file on this device.)

This is what I get after twiddling with brightness/contrast/etc, which already looks fairly close to the file image.

 

[Andreas]

well photographs do fade with time too.

Yeah, that's the thing. Lindsay's photo is 35 years old and could have faded or been affected by time. But it was stored in an envelope, so it's not like it was hanging on a wall exposed to direct sunlight. That said, people inspecting it over the years—possibly pointing at it with pens or who knows what—could definitely have added stains, lines, and other marks. What I just can't understand is how specific details could disappear entirely.

 

[Andreas]

I think the issue of priming- raising expectations that the picture includes a Harrier, therefore that's what is "seen"- is important.

Yes, definitely! Already in the handwritten pm, it's described as "believed to be a Harrier".

However, if Lindsay wanted the picture to be investigated (and thought there was a chance of this happening), and deliberately doctored the image to that end, he must have been taking a significant chance;

I don't think he deliberately tried to alter anything. If he did some retouching, it was most likely just to make the scene more visible. It must have been quite difficult to create a usable copy from the grainy photograph.

Maybe the photo he photocopied wasn't the one he kept, but over the years he forgot he had more than one.

Possibly, but I don't understand why details like vertical stabilizers would appear different in two copies of the same photograph.

Or maybe just random 1980s photocopy weirdness? <Admittedly perhaps not the best technical explanation.
But yes, the left (possible) tailplane and (possible) wing are more evident in the photocopies.

Yeah, most of the strange artifacts in the crappy photocopies can definitely be chalked up to typical "photocopy weirdness." But I still find it odd that the "jet" looks much more like a Harrier in the photocopies than it does in the actual photograph.

My point is simply that the blurry, jet-like silhouette doesn't resemble a Harrier to me. When the MoD was asked to identify the "aircraft," a Harrier had already been suggested as the most likely candidate. It's even possible that Lindsay, in an attempt to make the photocopy easier to fax, enhanced the silhouette slightly—intentionally or not—making it appear more "Harrier-like." The question posed to the MoD likely wasn't "What are we seeing?" but rather, "Could this be a Harrier?"

To me, a Hawker Hunter is a much better fit. While there are some similarities between the two aircraft, they're fundamentally different. So why did the MoD settle on a Harrier? Probably because it was the most reasonable assumption—if you start from the premise that this is a genuine military jet captured mid-air while intercepting a strange object over Calvine in 1990.

But if we set those assumptions aside (which seems fair, especially given that no Harriers were flying in the area at the time), the evidence starts pointing in another direction: it's more likely a Hunter. Or a painting of a Hunter. Or a scale model. Or a man in a rowboat that just happens to look like a Hunter.

 

[JMartJr]

But if we set those assumptions aside (which seems fair, especially given that no Harriers were flying in the area at the time), the evidence starts pointing in another direction: it's more likely a Hunter. Or a painting of a Hunter. Or a scale model. Or a man in a rowboat that just happens to look like a Hunter

Or the picture was not taken when/where claimed.

 

[Andreas]

Or the picture was not taken when/where claimed.

Exactly. We don't know for sure when or where the photo was taken. If someone told us it was taken in the 1960s, most people would probably recognize the "jet" as a Hunter. The context definitely affects the conclusions. If we look only at the picture and disregard the context, I'd say the silhouette is quite similar to a Hawker Hunter.

The length of the tail, the placement of the wings, the lack of visible vertical stabilizers, and the overall proportions are fairly accurate. But a Harrier doesn't really match what we see in the photo.

 

[deirdre]

What I just can't understand is how specific details could disappear entirely.

i see remnants of those shapes in mendels tweaked scan. (post #1, 683)

To me, a Hawker Hunter is a much better fit.

not saying the Harrier id is 100% correct , but dont forget the MOD had the original negatives to examine. You are examining a copy (rephotograph) of a 35 year old 8X10 blow up on the internet.

 

[JMartJr]

not saying the Harrier id is 100% correct , but dont forget the MOD had the original negatives to examine. You are examining a copy (rephotograph) of a 35 year old 8X10 blow up on the internet.

This is a fair point, but we can only look at the evidence that has been placed in evidence! ^_^

Of course, if it IS a Harrier, that is good evidence that the picture was not taken where and when claimed.

 

[Ann K]

Of course, if it IS a Harrier, that is good evidence that the picture was not taken where and when claimed.

Or it is evidence that the person who said "no Harriers were there" was incorrect.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

What was the standard business model for a tabloid at the time?

-They were in the business of Entertainment - not reporting news. This was show business.

-Much more material was available for each edition than there was room for. Most stories were killed. That's not something extraordinary. It was standard practice . This was true of the London Times, Playboy Magazine, The Saturday Evening Post, the college newspaper at UCLA (The Daily Bruin). Most potential material was thrown out. Not a mysterious process.

-Some material was submitted, some was produced internally by professionals. Internally produced material would be favored because of its quality. Amateur submissions would be subpar and would have to be punched up by the professionals. Due to tight schedules and limited staff, punching up was limited. Amateur submissions were low priority.

-Factors which were considered: Entertainment value of photo/story. Additional work that would have to be done to make photo/story entertaining. The amount of material available for that particular edition. If a lot of material was available, more was killed. Filler material was included to "make up a page." (The page had a physical layout. Filler material was inserted into actual, physical holes in the page layout.)

-The law of independent trials. Some people here are pointing out the similar photos/stories were printed in other editions. Therefore there must be some mysterious process at work to explain the disparity. The disparity can be explained thus: The editors decided to go with a similar photo/story in that edition. What happened in other editions is independent. They're not going to go back to old, stale amateur material from the files weeks/months later. It's not likely that they even had such file material. They would probably physically throw out the material right away. The dumpster in the US - the rubbish bin in the UK.

-Topical value. Is the there something about the photo/story that matches current trends? A hot topic? Death or scandal of public figures leads. Hoax photos of flying saucers were a hot topic in 1950. But not in 1990.

- Color was possible, but expensive. The front page would definitely be in color. Just as the funny pages in the Sunday Edition of the Los Angeles Times was always in color in the 1960's.

What about stories connected to the Belgian UFO Flap? How would that "find space" in a tabloid of the time?
It's topical. There is already interest.
Human interest story. There are lurid tales.
Prepackaged story that takes minimal punching up by professionals on a tight schedule.

What about the similar Ian Macpherson story in 1994?
As pointed out - Nick Pope provided prepackaged material
The article has a "Retro Ridicule" slant. Making fun of the story because it's old fashioned. That's entertainment.

Why would the Calvine hoax photos be left out of the print edition and stay dead?
-Old fashioned
-No topical value. Unlike the Belgium UFO Flap it's an isolated story with no pre-exiting interest.
-No lurid human interest story. The story that came with the photos is amateurish, lacking in detail and boring. It would take a lot of time and resources to punch it up. But punch it up into what? It would still be boring.
-Tabloids don't hold onto stale stories. They just throw them out. They already have more material than could possibly be printed.

The story was too much trouble for too little value. Once it was dead it was dead. This is an entirely adequate explanation. There's no reason to appeal to some kind of unlikely scenario involving someone getting scared or shadowy government officials.

 

[FatPhil]

The length of the tail, the placement of the wings, the lack of visible vertical stabilizers, and the overall proportions are fairly accurate. But a Harrier doesn't really match what we see in the photo.

You're half way there.

Nothing is a good match because my fucking goldfish would be as good a match as anything else that's been proposed.

And my goldfish don't fly.

 

[JMartJr]

Nothing is a good match because my fucking goldfish would be as good a match as anything else that's been proposed.

And my goldfish don't fly.

Please post goldfish!

 

[John J.]

Possibly, but I don't understand why details like vertical stabilizers would appear different in two copies of the same photograph.

Maybe in a different photograph the aircraft (if it is an aircraft- or model of one) was at a slightly different angle, so the port wing and tailplane weren't "washed out" by the sunlight/ ambient light. -Total conjecture by me, though.
Lindsay seems to be a reasonably intelligent man, and served as the public relations guy at RAF Pitreavie for some years, I don't know but I'm guessing he wouldn't be tempted to "clarify" a photocopy of the photo before sending it.

My subjective impression, which is no more valid than anyone else's, has always been that "the jet" looks like a very poor image of a Harrier GR3, the slender nose not resolved.
American AV8A / AV8C are first generation but lack the slender nose, being similar in appearance to British GR1s.
American AV8B/ British Harrier II (GR5, 7 and 9) have larger wings, more prominent undercarriage outriggers on the wings and a slightly enlarged forward fuselage with a higher-mounted cockpit and "bubble" canopy.

Using the picture of the GR3, I inverted the image (to allow for which wing appears to have most reflective glare in the GR3 picture and in the Calvine photo, if the latter is a jet) and played about with contrast etc. and removed the underwing stores.

we don't quite get a man in a rowing boat,

...but maybe a penguin?

I did this partly to raise a smile, but comparing the two...

Any thoughts?
Once you see it...
Or do I need to start taking my Recogni-Gone (TM) anti-pareidolia tablets?

...the MOD had the original negatives to examine.

I think this is important. Lindsay claimed the pictures were examined by JARIC (and we know from the National Archives that JARIC were later asked to examine the transparencies in the absence of original negatives and photos).
JARIC was a highly professional organisation, at times performing work which in some cases would inform decisions that might result in risk to British/ allied personnel or the deaths of others. Most of its work was secret, though it also assisted in civil (albeit governmental) surveying and mapping.
It's pretty certain some of the imagery it was asked to interpret would be non-optimal: Taken at a great distance, in poor weather or of camouflaged vehicles etc., or perhaps from equipment that had not performed as desired.

My feeling is that if JARIC "established" that the aircraft was a Harrier, it probably was (or was at least a model of one). However, all organisations make errors, particularly when dealing with incomplete or ambiguous data.

Our problems are (1) we don't know that Lindsay's claim re. JARIC is correct, (2) we don't know the results of the later requested JARIC review of the transparencies (whose information content was probably significantly degraded by the photocopy process),
(3) even if we had this information it's likely the means by which these conclusions were reached would remain secret, if any records remain at all.

Edited to add: The blue-red roundels are used on most British military aircraft, not just RAF; e.g. in 1990 the RN's Sea Harriers, also (in 1990) the small number of aircraft operated by the Royal Aerospace Establishment (formerly Royal Aircraft Establishment, RAE) and the Aeroplane and Armament Experimental Establishment (A&AEE) at Boscombe Down, and a small number of test/ demonstration aircraft, including fast jets, owned by British Aerospace PLC (now BAE Systems).
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Can't give a citation for this- so not very MB or indeed reliable- but I think I very vaguely recall some demonstration that if subtly different pictures of the same ambiguous object are "locked" to a fixed landmark/ point, and pictures tilted as necessary so they have a common fixed horizon- not necessarily the literal horizon- viewing the pictures in rapid succession can have a gestalt effect on identification of the object. Can anyone shed any light on this?

 

[Andreas]

I don't know but I'm guessing he wouldn't be tempted to "clarify" a photocopy of the photo before sending it.

It depends on why he sent the photo, I guess. A photocopy of an already grainy photo wasn't exactly ideal for anyone to examine. I've always thought Lindsay wanted to find out whether the Brits—or perhaps one of their allies—had something flying with a profile similar to the diamond shape in the photo. Maybe he was just looking for a first impression. If it had been a known type of blimp or reflector, they probably would have identified it immediately, given its unusual shape. Identifying the 'jet,' on the other hand, would obviously have been much more difficult, not to say impossible.

Any thoughts?
Once you see it...
Or do I need to start taking my Recogni-Gone (TM) anti-pareidolia tablets?

Yeah, possibly—and the photo really is bad. But we still have the wing placement to consider. They're positioned far too far forward on the fuselage for it to be a Harrier, regardless of whether the jet is upside down, banking left, or banking right. And the tail section is far too long. Maybe that's due to some distortion in the image—or maybe not. But the proportions fit a Hawker Hunter. In other words, either it's a Hunter, or it's a photo of a Harrier distorted to look like a Hunter.

Sure, we can always refer to the mysterious additional five photos and argue that the "Harrier" is probably more clearly visible in them. But we don't know that. All we have is this one remaining photo to study—and in that photo, the blurry silhouette simply doesn't resemble a Harrier.

And finally, we don't know how much effort the MoD actually put into identifying the objects seen in the photograph. The object was referred to as a UFO in the handwritten memo, and I doubt the MoD spent much time or money investigating UFOs—but that's just a guess.

 

[Andreas]

You're half way there.

Nothing is a good match because my fucking goldfish would be as good a match as anything else that's been proposed.

And my goldfish don't fly.

You're obviously right to some extent. But I do think some features are worth examining—like the length of the fuselage compared to the size of the wing(s). Still, you're right: in the end, it's just a blurry dot, and it's impossible to say with certainty what we're looking at. That said, I think we can rule out certain things. It's clearly not a flying elephant, a balloon, or a passenger jet. And based on the proportions, it's unlikely that we're looking at a Harrier either.

 

[Mendel]

Don't forget there may be motion blur involved, and the MoD had more images to go on.

 

[Andreas]

Don't forget there may be motion blur involved, and the MoD had more images to go on.

Well, I think there's another reason behind the Harrier hypothesis than the MoD having positively identified the aircraft. In the "Defensive lines to take" paragraph, we can read:

"Confident that jet aircraft is a Harrier" —
not "we have identified a Harrier in the photographs" or anything along those lines. Then the MoD concludes that "no Harriers operating in location at stated time." I'm quite sure the MoD considered this to be a simple hoax, and this was an easy way to dismiss the whole story. They likely had more urgent matters to deal with than answering questions about hoaxed UFO sightings. In other words: Harrier in photo - no Harriers in area - witness lying - case closed.

 

[Mendel]

"Confident that jet aircraft is a Harrier" —
not "we have identified a Harrier in the photographs" or anything along those lines.

an identification comes with a confidence level
you're grasping at straws here
we know who looked at it

 

[John J.]

No thoughts on what looks like a roundel on the wing? In the right place?

 

[Andreas]

an identification comes with a confidence level
you're grasping at straws here
we know who looked at it

Well, I don't really think so. Since we don't know what kind of investigation was actually carried out, it's impossible to say how or why the MoD arrived at that conclusion. Did they really identify this blurry dot as a Harrier, or did they reach that conclusion through a process of elimination—based on the assumption that this is, in fact, a scene from Scotland taken in 1990? And did they even care that much about a "UFO incident" involving a diamond-shaped object zipping off into the unknown?

I don't think I'm grasping at straws here, since I'm not trying to defend a particular answer. But accepting the MoD's conclusion that the small dot is a Harrier seems rather naive—especially considering the silhouette doesn't match that of a Harrier.

 

[Mendel]

But accepting the MoD's conclusion that the small dot is a Harrier seems rather naive

yeah, this is where we disagree

"the MoD could've misidentified a Harrier" is not a take I find at all likely

 

[Trailblazer]

In other words, we'd be looking at something like this:
View attachment 78417

Which looks rather similar to the landscape on An Teampan, one of the prime candidates for the photo location.

I'd suggest the smaller leaved tree at the top is not birch but larch. From this photo posted last week on Twitter it looks like larch to me? It appears to be deciduous.


Source: https://x.com/graemerendall66/status/1907360270155980828

This was also pointed out back in post 278.

 

[JMartJr]

yeah, this is where we disagree

"the MoD could've misidentified a Harrier" is not a take I find at all likely

Would it seem more likely if stated as "some poor guy at MoD who was handed a patently fake UFO picture where the only good outcome was to get it off his desk as soon as possible" type of characterization, instead of "the MoD?" A conclusion reached by such a person unknown under circumstances unknown might not deserve the weight implied by being a conclusion of MoD... similar to how the conclusions of some pilots about a TicTac or Gimbaling object aren't really the opinions of 'the Navy."

 

[Andreas]

yeah, this is where we disagree

"the MoD could've misidentified a Harrier" is not a take I find at all likely

Fair. We must just agree to disagree. Personally I think this is a typical example of "garbage in, garbage out".

 

[Andreas]

Would it seem more likely if stated as "some poor guy at MoD who was handed a patently fake UFO picture where the only good outcome was to get it off his desk as soon as possible" type of characterization, instead of "the MoD?" A conclusion reached by such a person unknown under circumstances unknown might not deserve the weight implied by being a conclusion of MoD... similar to how the conclusions of some pilots about a TicTac or Gimbaling object aren't really the opinions of 'the Navy."

Word! We must not forget that this was categorized as a UFO observation already in the handwritten PM. And I'm fairly sure cases like that weren't exactly top priority. We've seen so many instances of military and government agencies misidentifying things—even when there's far better evidence available than the blurry dot in the Calvine case.

In Sweden, we had the "submarine affair" in the 1980s, when the Swedish navy hunted supposed "Russian submarines" lurking off the coast. Millions were spent, depth charges were dropped, and Soviet ambassadors were accused of hostile activities. And in the end, it all turned out to be… minks, shoals of fish, and anchors being dragged along the seabed.

I'm reminded of a quote from the Swedish progressive rock band Blå Tåget:

"To photograph what doesn't exist,
No lens, however sharp, can persist
But it still makes juicy headlines fast—
Yell "bear!" and the myth will last
Search for ghosts, find trolls instead
Even if signal intel's dead
It turned into a postmodern intrigue—
Where fiction itself became the league
Like tabloid news for the needy crowd,
Presented flashy and fearfully loud"

But in the Calvine case, not even the tabloids cared…

 

[JMartJr]

In Sweden, we had the "submarine affair" in the 1980s, when the Swedish navy hunted supposed "Russian submarines" lurking off the coast. Millions were spent, depth charges were dropped, and Soviet ambassadors were accused of hostile activities. And in the end, it all turned out to be… minks, shoals of fish, and anchors being dragged along the seabed.

I suspect that should be "minke" whales. If they were mistaking minks for submarines, I want to know more!

 

[deirdre]

Personally I think this is a typical example of "garbage in, garbage out".

We must not forget that this was categorized as a UFO observation already in the handwritten PM.

then maybe you should stop fixating on some "PM" (personal memo?" ) whose providence and date written is 100% unknown, and focus more on the typed report... That was written after someone at the MOD ASKED to see the negatives. And LOOKED at the negatives.

if you or a handful of others want to believe the jets were hunters and not harriers, have at it. But your analysis of a rephotographed 30 year old enlarged photograph on a computer screen is certainly no more trustworthy than the military looking at the negatives to determine if foreign craft were in the area.

but who cares if its a harrier or a hunter? we have no record of the photographer saying "i saw a harrier".
and if the MOD checked the area for known military activity they would have noticed hunters in the area at time, if there were hunters. And they likely would have said "we did have hunters in the area, but no reports of an unidentified object seen in the area".

Its very fair to assume there were no known military jets at the alleged location, at the alleged time. period.

 

[John J.]

"Confident that jet aircraft is a Harrier" —
not "we have identified a Harrier in the photographs" or anything along those lines.

I think, in the context, the above two statements are equivalent.
The "Confident that jet aircraft is a Harrier" must refer to the part of the photograph that some of us think looks like a plane.

They likely had more urgent matters to deal with than answering questions about hoaxed UFO sightings. In other words: Harrier in photo - no Harriers in area - witness lying

Totally agree with the first line, but if (assuming it was JARIC) they were asked to do something by a person or department with authority to ask, they would be expected to do it. Servicemen and women are used to being asked to do what they might consider to be dumb stuff.
Kind of agree with the second line; although the MoD "Defensive Lines..." doesn't overtly state the claimants are lying, the conclusions (aircraft Harrier(s), none in that area at that time) might reasonably lead the reader to conclude it's a hoax.

Looking through the MoD UFO desk stuff from the National Archives, I don't recall any reports being described as deliberate hoaxes, though there are one or two internal memos/ cover notes with "...this might amuse you" or similar wording, and one case where MoD staff briefly allude to the background of a regular correspondent- including a recent court appearance.
As the MoD was known to have a UFO desk, they probably received large numbers of obvious hoaxes and crank enquiries.

Other highlights from the files include:

A letter from a school child to the MoD asking for the truth about UFOs after she had seen some strange lights (includes a drawing of an alien in a UFO waving). The UFO desk sent a bag of RAF goodies in response (DEFE 24/ 2457/1)

A report received via the UFO hotline by someone who had been "living with an alien" in Carlisle for sometime (DEFE 24/2625/1)

Report by a man from Cardiff who claimed a UFO abducted his dog, car and tent whilst he was camping with friends in 2007 (DEFE 24/2623/1)

National Archives, PRESS RELEASE UFO Desk: Closed - Last Tranche of UFO Files Released - https://cdn.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/final-tranche-of-UFO-files-released.pdf

I suspect there might have been guidelines that the UFO desk would always be polite, and refrain from explicitly stating (in public) that anything was a deliberate hoax or that someone was lying.

Did they really identify this blurry dot as a Harrier, or did they reach that conclusion through a process of elimination—based on the assumption that this is, in fact, a scene from Scotland taken in 1990?

Not sure how that would work; Harriers were never based in Scotland (though regularly visited, particularly making use of the Cape Wrath range at the north-western tip of Scotland, and for airshows).

A number of Hawker Hunter trainers still served at RAF Lossiemouth, Scotland, serving as crew trainers for the 2-seat Blackburn Buccaneer maritime attack/ strike aircraft based there, so a Hunter might have been a more likely "default" option if the examining personnel believed it was a jet, couldn't identify type but felt compelled to state one (which I feel would be unprofessional. I'd guess JARIC would frequently have to express uncertainty about image details that they were asked to identify).

SEPECAT Jaguars were based at Lossiemouth 1973-2000 (Wikipedia) and are roughly the same size as Harriers

, figures (Harrier GR3, Jaguar) from Wikipedia,
but the blurry image was not identified as a Jaguar, or "probably" a Jaguar.


I am a bit troubled by the "Confident the jet aircraft is a Harrier" wording, because to me that implies that it is a real aircraft, i.e. not a model (or other representation of a Harrier, e.g. an image or cut-out on glass), which I thought (think?) was more likely.
Similarly, the MoD loose minute (National Archives DEFE 24/1940/1 first posted here)

One aircraft is "...established" to be a Harrier, another (of which we have no indications at all in what is available to us),

the MoD had more images to go on

is "...probably" a Harrier- the first (possible) aircraft is not described as probably a Harrier, although those examining the image are clearly able to use that phrasing, it is established to be a Harrier.

"the MoD could've misidentified a Harrier" is not a take I find at all likely

Sort of agree.

 

[John J.]

We must not forget that this was categorized as a UFO observation already in the handwritten PM.

That must in part be why it ended up with the RAF/ MoD UFO Desk, Secretariat (Air Staff) Sec (AS) 2a.

An editor of Scotland's best-selling national daily newspaper contacted a public relations officer for the RAF in Scotland (Craig Lindsay) asking for the RAF's view about some claimed photos of a UFO.
Lindsay (or maybe someone else in London) made sure it ended up with the part of the MoD that investigated UFO reports.
Given the back story, no matter how unlikely, everyone did their job.

The editor (perhaps picture editor Andy Allan) was pursuing a possible story of interest.
Lindsay's role would presumably be, in part, to foster friendly relations with the media. It would not be to decide what UFO reports should be taken seriously by the RAF/ MoD.
The MoD had a UFO desk that dealt with enquiries about UFO sightings, and would sometimes do some work to investigate likely explanations.

With the notable exception of Nick Pope, there is no evidence that (AS) 2a staff believed that because something was described as a UFO, it was likely to be an alien spacecraft or anything else unusual.

Quite the opposite;

The UFO Desk received over 600 UFO sightings and reports in 2009, treble the amount of the previous year. With this surge in sighting reports, increasing time and resources were needed to manage the UFO Desk which the files note "serves no defence purpose and merely encourages the generation of correspondence". The files also show that in 2009, Defence Minister Bob Ainsworth was told that in more than 50 years "no UFO sighting reported to [MoD] has ever revealed anything to suggest an extra-terrestrial presence or military threat to the UK" (DEFE 24/2458/1). This led to their decision to close the UFO Desk and with it the UFO hotline and dedicated email address.

https://cdn.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/final-tranche-of-UFO-files-released.pdf
(My bold).

Similarly, I don't think that e.g. JARIC, receiving a request from the UFO desk (probably via DI55; I doubt (AS) 2a was in a position to routinely request their assistance) would necessarily be swayed by a description from (AS) 2a or a member of the public (even allowing for "priming" and similar biases), I'd guess JARIC staff were probably proud of their expertise.

 

[Mendel]

I am a bit troubled by the "Confident the jet aircraft is a Harrier" wording, because to me that implies that it is a real aircraft, i.e. not a model (or other representation of a Harrier, e.g. an image or cut-out on glass), which I thought (think?) was more likely.

I'm not.
It's understood they're talking about a photograph, not an actual jet.
So any result they have can only mean "the jet aircraft in the photo looks like a Harrier", which would encompass a model, or a photo of a photo or drawing, of a Harrier.
What is written is just shorthand for that.

When you write, "that's grandma in that photo", you either mean the woman looks like grandma, or that you remember the occasion when the photo was taken, i.e. you have additional information. The MoD explicitly stated that the search for additional information failed, so the confidence extends only to the aircraft's looks.

 

[Smythe Bacchus]

When inspecting the "UFO" and the jet, their basic shapes remain fairly consistent between the photocopies and Lindsay's original photo. But in the photocopies, they appear outlined, whereas in the original, they're just blurry shapes. The left wing is also just as dark as the rest of the aircraft, even though in Lindsay's photo, it's almost as faint as the background. More importantly, the photocopy shows a rather pointy vertical stabilizer, which simply isn't there in the original photograph.

Article:

From a grayscale image, thresholding can be used to create binary images.

The simplest thresholding methods replace each pixel in an image with a black pixel if the image intensity less than a fixed value called the threshold, or a white pixel if the pixel intensity is greater than that threshold.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thresholding_(image_processing)

Thresholding is a type of quantization, where the image palette is reduced to individual pixels that are either black or white. Depending on the threshold value, this can cause lighter tones to become solid black, which can explain the "outlining" effect in the monochrome scan of the Calvine UFO photo.

Article:

Quantization, in mathematics and digital signal processing, is the process of mapping input values from a large set (often a continuous set) to output values in a (countable) smaller set, often with a finite number of elements.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantization_(signal_processing)

Thresholding is a simple and effective technique that can dramatically reduce data storage and transmission requirements for scanned documentation with simple solid colour text and graphics. But there is considerable loss of detail (aka quantization error) when thresholding grey tones. There are many dither algorithms that have been developed to preserve greater detail.

Article:

Dither is an intentionally applied form of noise used to randomize quantization error

A common use of dither is converting a grayscale image to black and white, so that the density of black dots in the new image approximates the average gray level in the original.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dither

Dithering introduces a dot pattern to what would otherwise be areas of solid black and white after thresholding of grey tones. This is clearly visible in the black and white fax/photocopy of the Calvine UFO image.

The Wikipedia articles include before and after images. More details here: Ditherpunk — The article I wish I had about monochrome image dithering

Source: https://surma.dev/assets/dark-random.71222d66.png

This image processing technique has been used for over half a century in scanning, printing, photocopying, and fax machine technologies. The use of data compression algorithms in combination with the already reduced size of black and white image data made it possible to achieve efficient transmission of facsimiles over low bandwidth and long distance phone line connections.

Article:

Typically a page needs 10 s for transmission, instead of about three minutes for the same uncompressed raw data of 1728×1145 bits at a speed of 9600 bit/s.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fax#Typical_characteristics

 

[FatPhil]

This image processing technique has been used for over half a century in scanning, printing, photocopying, and fax machine technologies. The use of data compression algorithms in combination with the already reduced size of black and white image data made it possible to achieve efficient transmission of facsimiles over low bandwidth and long distance phone line connections.

Article:

Typically a page needs 10 s for transmission, instead of about three minutes for the same uncompressed raw data of 1728×1145 bits at a speed of 9600 bit/s.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fax#Typical_characteristics

CCITT T.6 ("fax") was designed for line art, such as text or technical diagrams, and indeed it performed very well. Comparing it to an uncompressed file, however, simply isn't a fair comparison. The adaptive nature of JBIG, and in particular JBIG2, and the fact that handling halftoned or dithered images well was designed in right from the outset, made them far more suitable. T.6 absolutely sucks at dithered mid tones - it could easily make an image larger.