Is the 'fence post' seen here a type of temporary 'fence pin' like this.....?
https://www.cmt.co.uk/fencing-pins
Claim: Original Calvine UFO Photo
- Thread starter Mick West
- Start date
Is the 'fence post' seen here a type of temporary 'fence pin' like this.....?
https://www.cmt.co.uk/fencing-pins
Ravi
Senior Member.
Never been able to to that with a lens then was open to say F/2 or so. Just not possible.
Duke
Senior Member.
GR.3s were still being flown by the RAF up to 93-94.
Rory
Closed Account
Okay, while we're on the subject of Harriers - what to make of the "retask" (secondary investigation of the photos) ordered in November 1991 where it's stated "Task already discussed with Ops 4 Sqn"?
IV Squadron were stationed at the time at RAF Gütersloh, Germany (600 miles from Calvine) and, yes, flew Harriers.
Just dudes who knew Harriers and therefore the obvious people to go to for id on the plane? Or something else?
IV Squadron were stationed at the time at RAF Gütersloh, Germany (600 miles from Calvine) and, yes, flew Harriers.
Just dudes who knew Harriers and therefore the obvious people to go to for id on the plane? Or something else?
Duke
Senior Member.
Could have been the pilot flying the Harrier in the Calvine photo had been posted to 4 Squadron and was still in Germany in Nov 91.
DavidB66
Senior Member.
Sorry if I've overlooked it, but what is the source for the 'retask'? (I searched Metabunk for 'retask 1991' but didn't get anything except your post above!) I thought the evidence suggested two possible interviews with the 'witnesses' (an initial phone call from the Press Officer to get hold of the photos then a fuller investigation by Defence Intelligence), but I assumed these were both in 1990. Then (according to Clarke) in 1992 there was a flap when a copy of one of the photos somehow turned up in the Pentagon, and there was an exchange of correspondence between Baldwin and Spiers in which they both said the incident was a hoax or spoof. So what happened to revive interest in 1991?
JMartJr
Senior Member.
Only thing I can see "out in the world" was the Belgian Triangle UFO flap in 1989/90, which might have revived interest in the topic in European military circles.
Daves!
Active Member
237 OCU at Lossiemouth had Hunters and Buckaneers at this point. No Harriers.
its the closest mil.airfield to Calvine.
if i make a ( fictional ) reconstruction timeline :
- 2 witnesses start to see a UFO for in total 10 mins.
- after 6 (?) mins of their encounter jets appear.
- 4 mins later UFO disappears vertically towards the sky.
- So how long would it take to fly a Hunter toward the location if they flew from Lossiemouth ?
- How long would it take a Harrier to get to the location from ( unknown for me ) nearest mil.airfield with Harriers at that time ?
they saw it around 09:15 pm ( correct me if i am wrong ) so what time would a Radarpost detect the object and scramble 2 jets ?
i have a feeling that the planes and their departures somehow are important to this story, and i dont know why.
NorCal Dave
Senior Member.
It's covered in Clark's stuff. Media and political pressure concerning possible overflights by the US Aurora (edit: the hypothetical Aurora), not so much interest in the photos themselves, got someone to take another look at the case (bold in original):
https://drdavidclarke.co.uk/secret-files/the-calvine-ufo-photographs/Media and Parliamentary interest in 1991-2 may have led MoD to order a second examination of the Calvine images. The DI55 UFO files released at The National Archives in 2009 reveal how, 16 months after the photographs were taken the branch sent copies of five ‘vu-foils’ to the RAF’s Joint Air Reconnaissance Centre (JARIC).
Oddly, these were in the form of acetates taken from the original negatives. This was, I am informed, to allow analysts to project the images onto a wall-mounted whiteboard for more detailed scrutiny.
As part of this ‘re-tasking’ DI55 asked JARIC to produce calculations such as height above ground and distance from camera to determine the true ‘diameter, size and dimension [of the UFO] where possible’.
The confidential tasking says ‘sensitivity of the material suggests very special handling’ was required.
This document also mentions the task had ‘already [been] discussed with Ops 4 Squadron‘. This is significant as No 4 Squadron flew ground attack Harrier jets from RAF Gutersloh in Germany in 1990. Pairs of pilots from squadron were undergoing training for low-flying exercises at the outbreak of the Gulf War.
The re-tasking is covered by a note from another DI branch dated 29 January 1992. But the remainder of the file tells us nothing about what happened next. From here the paper trail goes cold.
I find this hard to believe. Iraq invaded Kuwait on 2 August 1990. The picture was taken 4 August 1990. I thing it is unlikely that the Royal Air Force had started training specifically for a War within 2 days of the invasion.
Rory
Closed Account
Yah, I don't think we've really talked about that. It's in the DI55 papers obtained in one of the FOIA releases. Pretty much everything that's pertinent is here:
but I'll attach the whole thing. Reads:
Attached are 5 (five) vu-foils of an unidentified flying object. Please produce line drawings of object with size and dimension where possible. This is a retask of an original passed in Sept 90. Original negatives are not available.
1. Task already discussed with Ops 4 Sqn
3. Since revisit exists official tasking would be in order, but sensitivity of material suggests very special handling. Suggest therefore an ad hoc on DI55's IP 4005 with minimum handling by listed personnel.
Please return all material to DI55c1.
29 Nov 91
I suppose first question is: were the materials sensitive because they were fragile (vu-foils being those transparent plastic sheets they used to use with overhead projectors) or because they were "secret"? I would guess the latter.
They were training in Cumbria and the Borders - probably with Harriers - the day before though, already scheduled (Mallett Blow 90/2).
Not that that necessarily means anything.
Last edited:
NorCal Dave
Senior Member.
Only if that's a real plane in the photo. If it's simply a double exposed silhouette, then there is no plane to find.
Duke
Senior Member.
1991 corresponds to Nick Pope's arrival, perhaps he initiated the retask.
Rory
Closed Account
JMartJr
Senior Member.
How confident are folks that the date that the photo was taken is accurately reported?
Duke
Senior Member.
I was only answering the question why 4 Squadron might have been contacted in 1991. I believe the a/c in the photo is a Harrier. Where it came from and who was flying it (or any other type a/c for that matter) can only be determined with certainty by reviewing the maintenance and operations records for the date in question for the entire RAF fast jet inventory in the UK.
If those records still exist, are complete, and are accessible, that's doable by someone who knows the RAF a/c records system of 1990. I think I could do it for a USAF a/c circa 1990, but I'd have to reeducate myself on the applicable form numbers and filing processes.
Rory
Closed Account
Apparently Graeme Rendall has put quite a bit of work into trying to locate where the Harriers were at the time, as mentioned in this nicely-written summary that covers most of the things we've talked about in this thread:
Not very.
Article: The mention of No.4 Squadron Operations appears to confirm that enquiries about the object were made with at least one unit operating the Harrier ground-attack jet. This squadron was based at RAF Gütersloh in Germany at the time and equipped with Harrier GR.3s but was on the point of converting to the new GR.5 variant. Several pilots from the unit were undergoing conversion training in Surrey and Arizona at that time. Some of the remaining No.4 Squadron Harrier GR.3s may have returned to Britain for exercises and low-flying training in September 1990 due to a complete ban on the latter being in force in Germany at the time. In October 2021, Graeme Rendall checked the Operations Record Books for the various front-line units operating the Harrier at the time (No.1, No.3 and No.4 Squadrons) but found no reference to any aircraft that might have been flying over Scotland on the day of the incident.
Not very.
Duke
Senior Member.
No mention of Rendall having checked the records of the RAF Harrier OCU(s), FAA units, or any test/development/trials units that might have been operating any Harrier variant in Aug 1990.
Very very unlikely that any of these would have been flying at 9pm on a Saturday evening.
jackfrostvc
Senior Member
Where was it said the object was silent ?
The incident report has no mention of sound as far as I can see
The incident report has no mention of sound as far as I can see
Duke
Senior Member.
You could be right, but the only way to be sure would be to check the records.
I should also add I'd need to know what data was included in RAF Operations Records Books circa 1990 to know if what he did was appropriate. My only experience with ORBs were those from WW2, and what I recall was a narrative account for the activities of the squadron as a whole for the period covered for each entry. What I'd look for are the RAF maintenance forms and log books equivalent to those used in the USAF for individual a/c and aircrew. Did ORBs cover that level detail in 1990?
D
Deleted member 17800
Guest
Just a NOTE I'd like to add.
If someone could go to ( I believe someone already has ) and stood in the presumed spot the following is possible re my earlier posts of colouring.
What is known ' stacking ' is a method that adds depth and contrast and a plethora of other ' enhancements to the photo.
My main use is macro ( nature / wildlife.
Example using say an 85 mm pro lens one is at maximum and minimum focal distance from say that ladybird or wasp being taken.
It sounds a little crude but you literally rock to and fro oh so tiny movements altering settings for desired outcome..
This captures the shadow ( at macro level a wide focal range is extremely difficult ).
Then after during editing one stacks ( layers ) each photo to make a montage.
When processed correctly you lose that focal bokeh / blur and can then see the shape of the petals the colour / shadow/ details and it makes for a pleasing final photo.
Macro is my personal thing and it isn't what I sell as a skill it is if you like my whim within what I do,
To conclude:
At the Calvine spot if multiple photos taken at multiple focal lengths ( focusing on foreground / background and all and any in between then a similar montage would help determine colour.
That ' ufo ' would if it is presumably reflective have bounced light and shadow of perhaps the valley the hills etc. One would NOT need to rock
Obviously the 'ufo' would not be there but with my afore previous mentioned painting by pixel shade it would make life much easier to afford a possible colouring.
Below is a species of beetle or ladybird for example. The ladybird is focused and is about the size of a matchstick head but ' i wanted ' the rest to have bokeh for affect.
So imagine ALL of the photograph in focus re stacking.
Thank you for reading.
If someone could go to ( I believe someone already has ) and stood in the presumed spot the following is possible re my earlier posts of colouring.
What is known ' stacking ' is a method that adds depth and contrast and a plethora of other ' enhancements to the photo.
My main use is macro ( nature / wildlife.
Example using say an 85 mm pro lens one is at maximum and minimum focal distance from say that ladybird or wasp being taken.
It sounds a little crude but you literally rock to and fro oh so tiny movements altering settings for desired outcome..
This captures the shadow ( at macro level a wide focal range is extremely difficult ).
Then after during editing one stacks ( layers ) each photo to make a montage.
When processed correctly you lose that focal bokeh / blur and can then see the shape of the petals the colour / shadow/ details and it makes for a pleasing final photo.
Macro is my personal thing and it isn't what I sell as a skill it is if you like my whim within what I do,
To conclude:
At the Calvine spot if multiple photos taken at multiple focal lengths ( focusing on foreground / background and all and any in between then a similar montage would help determine colour.
That ' ufo ' would if it is presumably reflective have bounced light and shadow of perhaps the valley the hills etc. One would NOT need to rock
Obviously the 'ufo' would not be there but with my afore previous mentioned painting by pixel shade it would make life much easier to afford a possible colouring.
Below is a species of beetle or ladybird for example. The ladybird is focused and is about the size of a matchstick head but ' i wanted ' the rest to have bokeh for affect.
So imagine ALL of the photograph in focus re stacking.
Thank you for reading.
Attachments
Last edited by a moderator:
Charlie Wiser
Senior Member
One last hypothesis - this is a close-up of the shoot of a Scot's pine (Pinus sylvestris) and the horizontal reed-like appendages which appear to emerge from a trunk are the pine's needles.
This is very useful - thanks. The pine (if that's what it is) is probably obscuring a fence post - just pointing this out so it doesn't get confused with the plant itself. The spacing indicates there should be a fence post at that position and there's a hard vertical line showing.
NorCal Dave
Senior Member.
The simple answer is that the hoaxer knew where planes were likely to be seen low level and he set up there and waited. However, after seeing the Peurto Rico photo I got to thinking.
I'm just spit balling here, but I think I figured a way to make the photo simply with minimal effort, sans aircraft. It may also answer a few other niggling details, such as why B&W and why give all 6 of your original negatives to the paper?
If I wanted to copy the Puerto Rico photo, but do it one better, I would want a series of photos showing the a/c moving across the sky, and I would want that series to be continuous, that is, the negatives 1-6 are in tack and sequential on the roll of developed film.
That would mean I'd have to do it in camera, no dark room playing around. All I need is 1 camera, 2 tripods an old uv filter, a cardboard box, a flashlight (torch), a magazine picture of a Harrier and my model UFO.
This assumes our hoaxer practiced the various elements beforehand, so he had his focus and f stops worked out and has scouted the location.
First up, get a picture of a Harrier and cut it out, then trace it on the bottom of a cardboard box and cut that shape out on the box. Maybe paint the inside of the box black and lay it on it's side. The result is that when I point my lens into the open end of the box towards the bottom everything is black, except where I cut out the shape of the jet. Looking through the viewfinder I should see something like this:
Next, I get and old UV lens that screw onto the front of my lens. Here's one on Amazon, but they would have looked the same in 1990:
Now to keep track of everything, I make a guide by drawing on the old uv lens so that I have something like this:
The upper X is where my model will be. The lower line is the flight path of my plane and the cross lines are the points in the flight path where I "captured" the plane making a pass. Note the points are not staggered equally, I'm supposed to be mimicking a set of on-the-spot photos. This makes it look like it took longer or shorter time to advance the film for the next shot.
Now I'm all set. I head out into the field and hang my model from the tree, set my camera on a tripod and install the UV filter with the guide onto the lens. I should see something like this in my view finder, but without the plane obviously. I don't have Photoshop and couldn't figure out a way to erase the plane. Just imagine no plane there:
I then remove the UV guide filter, adjust the focus and click the shudder open. I now have a picture of the sky, fence and trees with my UFO hovering there. Now the only real bit of trickery, is that my camera has to allow me to open the shutter again without advancing the film. I don't recall my old K1000 being able to do this, but I don't think its insurmountable. Assuming I can do this, it's off to step 2.
I take the camera off the tripod for shooting the field and set up another one that lets my camera shoot into the cardboard box. I place my UV guide filter back on and turn on a flashlight behind the box to shine through the cutout of the plane. While the scale is clearly off, I should see something like this in my viewfinder:
Once I line up my cutout with my guide marks, I remove the UV guide filter and then defocus as much as possible, making the plane fuzzy. I then click my shutter, and basically burn a fuzzy image of the plane onto the sky of the already existing negative in my camera.
I now have a composited photo with my UFO model, the scene and a fuzzy looking Harrier in the distances.
Now I just have to advance my film and repeat the process 5 more times, each time using the UV guide lens to line up the next spot to place the plane so that it appears to travel across the sky in subsequent photos.
It sounds complicated because I'm trying to explain as well as possible, but it really wouldn't take more than 10 minutes, maybe less.
This uses no darkroom tricks and can be done by someone that needs to send their film in for processing. This would be much easier to do in B&W, hence the fancy B&W film. It would also produce 6 consecutive shots on a roll of negatives, proving that it was all done on the fly and not a set of different negatives manipulated in a darkroom. Hence the sending in of the negatives.
If I wanted to get a little clever, I would put some dirty tape over part of my cutout plane to muddy it up and create the light colored wing if the defocusing didn't do it enough. The UV guide filter lets me get even more clever. While I put the X on the center of my model UFO in the first shot, I can move it a little in later shots simulating a handheld camera. With the guide, I can move my plane cutout centering mark to match what I did on the UFO. That way, even as the UFO and plane move around a little from shot to shot to mimic handheld, the relationship between the UFO and the plane's flight path remains constant.
Just a thought.
I'm just spit balling here, but I think I figured a way to make the photo simply with minimal effort, sans aircraft. It may also answer a few other niggling details, such as why B&W and why give all 6 of your original negatives to the paper?
If I wanted to copy the Puerto Rico photo, but do it one better, I would want a series of photos showing the a/c moving across the sky, and I would want that series to be continuous, that is, the negatives 1-6 are in tack and sequential on the roll of developed film.
That would mean I'd have to do it in camera, no dark room playing around. All I need is 1 camera, 2 tripods an old uv filter, a cardboard box, a flashlight (torch), a magazine picture of a Harrier and my model UFO.
This assumes our hoaxer practiced the various elements beforehand, so he had his focus and f stops worked out and has scouted the location.
First up, get a picture of a Harrier and cut it out, then trace it on the bottom of a cardboard box and cut that shape out on the box. Maybe paint the inside of the box black and lay it on it's side. The result is that when I point my lens into the open end of the box towards the bottom everything is black, except where I cut out the shape of the jet. Looking through the viewfinder I should see something like this:
Next, I get and old UV lens that screw onto the front of my lens. Here's one on Amazon, but they would have looked the same in 1990:
Now to keep track of everything, I make a guide by drawing on the old uv lens so that I have something like this:
The upper X is where my model will be. The lower line is the flight path of my plane and the cross lines are the points in the flight path where I "captured" the plane making a pass. Note the points are not staggered equally, I'm supposed to be mimicking a set of on-the-spot photos. This makes it look like it took longer or shorter time to advance the film for the next shot.
Now I'm all set. I head out into the field and hang my model from the tree, set my camera on a tripod and install the UV filter with the guide onto the lens. I should see something like this in my view finder, but without the plane obviously. I don't have Photoshop and couldn't figure out a way to erase the plane. Just imagine no plane there:
I then remove the UV guide filter, adjust the focus and click the shudder open. I now have a picture of the sky, fence and trees with my UFO hovering there. Now the only real bit of trickery, is that my camera has to allow me to open the shutter again without advancing the film. I don't recall my old K1000 being able to do this, but I don't think its insurmountable. Assuming I can do this, it's off to step 2.
I take the camera off the tripod for shooting the field and set up another one that lets my camera shoot into the cardboard box. I place my UV guide filter back on and turn on a flashlight behind the box to shine through the cutout of the plane. While the scale is clearly off, I should see something like this in my viewfinder:
Once I line up my cutout with my guide marks, I remove the UV guide filter and then defocus as much as possible, making the plane fuzzy. I then click my shutter, and basically burn a fuzzy image of the plane onto the sky of the already existing negative in my camera.
I now have a composited photo with my UFO model, the scene and a fuzzy looking Harrier in the distances.
Now I just have to advance my film and repeat the process 5 more times, each time using the UV guide lens to line up the next spot to place the plane so that it appears to travel across the sky in subsequent photos.
It sounds complicated because I'm trying to explain as well as possible, but it really wouldn't take more than 10 minutes, maybe less.
This uses no darkroom tricks and can be done by someone that needs to send their film in for processing. This would be much easier to do in B&W, hence the fancy B&W film. It would also produce 6 consecutive shots on a roll of negatives, proving that it was all done on the fly and not a set of different negatives manipulated in a darkroom. Hence the sending in of the negatives.
If I wanted to get a little clever, I would put some dirty tape over part of my cutout plane to muddy it up and create the light colored wing if the defocusing didn't do it enough. The UV guide filter lets me get even more clever. While I put the X on the center of my model UFO in the first shot, I can move it a little in later shots simulating a handheld camera. With the guide, I can move my plane cutout centering mark to match what I did on the UFO. That way, even as the UFO and plane move around a little from shot to shot to mimic handheld, the relationship between the UFO and the plane's flight path remains constant.
Just a thought.
deirdre
Senior Member.
Greene
Member
FWIW the flying tech demonstrator was the Have Blue which looked very much like a smaller F-117 rather than a pure diamond shape.
Attachments
deirdre
Senior Member.
sign up for a free account. or:Thanks. It's only missing 290 pages.
search Calvine. page 176 shows in review. then click ON the 177 in search window and page shows. to see page 178 search "178"... i cant get 179 but hes only talking about aurora anyway.
He does use the term "paper darts" though which is interesting as i think the ufo looks like paper.
ill attach screen shots here i numbered them a,1,2,3,5,6
Attachments
NorCal Dave
Senior Member.
Not sure what the point is my friend. Pope is a bit of a UK Elizando with a self-inflated CV and an eye for UFO mystery mongering and invoking Bob Lazar. IF the Aurora ever existed, I doubt it would be buzzing a highway in Scotland.Here's 179 and end of chapter:
Next chapter is him saying he's convinced that there's no UFO cover-up by the UK government.
The flap about it may be a reason the Calvine photo was looked at again, but even then, other than a vaguely triangular shape, the hypothetical Aurora and the Calvine "craft" have nothing in common.
That's what I don't get about Clark's new theory that the photo captured a secret aircraft. Based on what Linsday told him? IF Linsday is accurate and IF what Linsday was told is accurate, he is not describing a hypersonic plane. He's describing a much fringier anti-gravity craft. Anti-gravity crafts are just one step from "reversed engineered alien tech". I took Clark for a little better than that.
D
Deleted member 17800
Guest
Hi all,
The first image is of the 'ufo' as it was downloaded and cloned pixels nearest / colour / to try add detail.
So what did I do?
I used AI to remove ' some ' noise and artifacts.
I then used high contrast and brightness.
Cloning the nearest pixels I merged the nearest pixels of the ' shades ' of colour and exaggerated them to see if anything can be made out ( including the lighter areas)..
I then duplicated the image and turned the entire photo a generic black and white and then erased the black and white from around the 'ufo' to add to it's appearance to give more detail ' what little is available.
Yet I do have an observation.
There appears to be ( don't laugh I am being serious ) some kind of antenna or thin protrusion from the middle top of the ' ufo'.
Is this said or could it possible be the reflection of a wire of some kind?
Yet I am truly of the feeling this is a genuine large object. ( or a very small object nearer ) !!
IF this is truly genuine that is. If not I am speechless to how they pulled it off ( not saying that is the case just observations.
If one inspects ( the best thus far available ) photo that ' protrusion' is visible after all afore done.
Difficult to see on these images uploaded unless you enlarge them.
Anyway this is what I did and it simply is what it is.
A basic look at the shadows ' presumable ' the reflection or darker side of the ' protrusion ' appears to be in the correct place.
Of course this may indeed be a protrusion on the ' ufo ' or!
I am going away to try and see if that ' antenna ' /wire / protrusion is visible further up the photo presumably perfectly vertical...will get back on that.
The first image is of the 'ufo' as it was downloaded and cloned pixels nearest / colour / to try add detail.
So what did I do?
I used AI to remove ' some ' noise and artifacts.
I then used high contrast and brightness.
Cloning the nearest pixels I merged the nearest pixels of the ' shades ' of colour and exaggerated them to see if anything can be made out ( including the lighter areas)..
I then duplicated the image and turned the entire photo a generic black and white and then erased the black and white from around the 'ufo' to add to it's appearance to give more detail ' what little is available.
Yet I do have an observation.
There appears to be ( don't laugh I am being serious ) some kind of antenna or thin protrusion from the middle top of the ' ufo'.
Is this said or could it possible be the reflection of a wire of some kind?
Yet I am truly of the feeling this is a genuine large object. ( or a very small object nearer ) !!
IF this is truly genuine that is. If not I am speechless to how they pulled it off ( not saying that is the case just observations.
If one inspects ( the best thus far available ) photo that ' protrusion' is visible after all afore done.
Difficult to see on these images uploaded unless you enlarge them.
Anyway this is what I did and it simply is what it is.
A basic look at the shadows ' presumable ' the reflection or darker side of the ' protrusion ' appears to be in the correct place.
Of course this may indeed be a protrusion on the ' ufo ' or!
I am going away to try and see if that ' antenna ' /wire / protrusion is visible further up the photo presumably perfectly vertical...will get back on that.
Attachments
Last edited by a moderator:
NorCal Dave
Senior Member.
You mean like a string? Also, go ahead and "insert" your photos into you comments. Makes it easier to see.
D
Deleted member 17800
Guest
I just did my friend
deirdre
Senior Member.
it's like google books, some pages are available here and there. if you search a term you sometimes get the page or you sometimes just get the search snippet.
deirdre
Senior Member.
it doesnt really seem in the right position for a wire. the object is "hairy" all over, and that seems to me just a slightly longer hair. (im using the term hair because ive never seen that in other photos i've enlarged. maybe furry is better description. like Oscar the grouch furry..do you think the hairs are normal?)
Tim Printy
Member
Wh
I used to own a K1000. I never really tried double exposures but it probably could be done. To rewind the film, you had a little button on the bottom. This disengaged the film advance. All you would have to do is press the button down and cock the film advance. The film would not move and the shutter would be re-armed allowing a double exposure. I am sure there were other ways to trick the camera into allowing a multiple exposure. I recall that my nikon FM2 had a multiple exposure lever on the advance mechanism. You just pressed it and it allowed you to cock the mechanism but not advance the film.
D
Deleted member 17800
Guest
Well it is definitely 'on' the photograph.
That part of the 'ufo' is 100 percent on the photograph and isn't altered by the processing that I mentioned.
I simply 'enhanced ' that area and those darker / antenna / pixels are on the photo in that spot and not anywhere else surrounding it to that amount that is.
When you work with ' pixels ' and small details like this all of the time one knows what is real and an artifact outright.
If ( silly I know ) I was restoring this photograph that 'antenna' wire / hair would most assuredly be in it.
Anyway that's my input to help out.
Similar threads
