The problem with the Calvine photo is its poor quality. There are numerous possible matches for the blurry dot, but interestingly, I don't think a Harrier is one of them. To me, it doesn't really matter, since I lean toward this being a model of some sort. And if it's a small model, then it could just as well be a Swedish J32 or some Russian mid-century jet. But the shape, proportions, and overall appearance just don't match a Harrier. As for the jet in the poster, it's most probably just some AI-generated fantasy aircraft.
Claim: Original Calvine UFO Photo
- Thread starter Mick West
- Start date
John J.
Senior Member.
Looks like a Harrier to me, allowing for the fact that we don't know its precise orientation relative to the photographer, it's a very poor quality image and some of the edges are "washed out"/ made indistinct by light reflected from some of its surfaces.
First time I ever saw a copy of the photo, before reading any of the context, I thought it was most likely a Harrier GR3 (or a representation of a Harrier GR3).
I guess there's not much point in us rehashing all that again as we don't have conclusive evidence one way or another.
It is a matter of archived historical fact that the Ministry of Defence, in receipt of all the photos and negatives, clearly stated that one aircraft was a Harrier and that a second aircraft was also present, "probably" a Harrier.
We can come up with speculation as to why that might have been wrong, but it is speculation, and our strongest arguments for that would be
(1) We are confident that the Calvine photographs were taken at the time and date stated by the claimant; we know (from the same MoD minute) that there weren't Harriers in that location at that time, ergo the aircraft cannot be Harriers.
(2) We don't think our one copy-of-a-copy of a photograph (not the negative), only available/ viewable to us as a digitized image, looks much like a Harrier, so that's a reasonable basis to assume that whatever is shown in the other five original photographs is equally ambivalent and there's no benefit to be obtained from viewing the same object in slightly different positions/ orientations across six images.
The original six photographs and all six negatives have no additional value over our one digitized copy-of-a-copy of one photograph.
(3) We don't know who analysed the photos, so it might be that the MoD minute writer pretended the relevant staffs (note the formal if rather archaic plural) had investigated the picture, and for some reason invented a second jet in the process, or the relevant RAF photographic interpretation unit personnel, when tasked to do something by the Ministry of Defence, were in the habit of deciding whether it was worth their effort to do it properly or not.
My views on this are subjective, but I don't think this is credible given the culture of the RAF and related MoD assets at that time.
We do know from the request for a repeat tasking (of line drawings and dimension estimates of the "UFO") found elsewhere in the (UK) National Archives (file DEFE-31-180-1) that is very highly likely there had been professional investigation of the Calvine photographs:
Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvine_UFO_photograph; the DEFE-31-180-1 file is attached to post #1734.External Quote:
The evidence from the National Archives is that the Calvine photographs and negatives were professionally examined by an appropriate organisation, and the relevant personnel documented their conclusions re. two jet aircraft.
We can disagree with those conclusions, but have to accept our evidence- the digitized copy of one photograph- is inferior to that available to the MoD/ RAF in 1990 in both number and nature.
Last edited:
I just don't think it's that simple. When concluding that the blurry dot was a Harrier, the MoD had the negatives in their possession for about two days. Enough time for an investigation, perhaps, but hardly indicative of an especially thorough analysis. And my trust in governments—and their ability to investigate "UFOs" and other unexplained phenomena—has crumbled over the years.
As an example, I have critically studied the so-called "submarine affair," an event in the 1980s when Sweden was allegedly, quite literally, invaded by whole fleets of Russian submarines. People reported seeing periscopes everywhere, and the Swedish Navy deployed ships and helicopters armed with depth charges and sonar equipment. After years of investigation, the Navy believed they had a clear picture—not only of submarines, but even of small underwater tanks moving in the archipelagos along the Swedish coast.
The public assumed that the Navy, as experts in such matters, would surely be able to identify the sound of a submarine engine and distinguish between tank tracks and an anchor being dragged across the seabed. Yet in recent years, investigative journalists have re-examined the evidence and concluded that the supposed engine noises were nothing more than shoals of fish and swimming minks, and that the "tank tracks" were simply imprints left by anchors.
Years of investigation, and the Navy still saw only what they wanted to see. So the MoD having just two days to examine some negatives—likely already suspected to be a hoax—doesn't convince me that the Harrier identification is written in stone.
We can speculate about the additional five photos, and we can guess that the original negatives were of much better quality than the image kept by Lindsay. But that's just speculation. What we actually have is this one photo—everything else is probably gone forever. And when looking at what we can see in the photo, I just don't think a Harrier is a good match. The shape appears elongated, with a long tail and swept-back wings placed relatively far forward on the fuselage, and no visible vertical stabilizers. None of this matches a Harrier. Without the context, would people really still have interpreted the dot as a Harrier? Or is it simply the most convenient explanation because the photo was allegedly taken in Scotland?
I don't want to argue with you about this detail, since I think we agree on most things regarding this case. Personally, I think it's more likely that the "jet" is some kind of model plane, and given the poor quality of the photo, it's impossible to say with certainty what we're looking at. I agree—it could be a Harrier—but if so, its silhouette would have to be heavily distorted by reflections, graininess, focus issues, and motion blur. The other possibility is simply that it's not a Harrier (or even a model of one).
JMartJr
Senior Member.
To me, the key takeaway from this discussion is just how poor the image is, that it allows for such divergent interpretations.
Ann K
Senior Member.
It has even been suggested that the airplane is actually a man and his dog in a rowboat, if you recall. If we can't be sure the image is even an airplane, then quibbling about what kind of plane is surely pointless.
Do we know that with certainty? While an MoD official might know what kinds of aircraft are BASED at any given location, it seems highly unlikely that he knows where one (or a group) might choose to go for a training run at any given time. And given their capabilities, they might have come from a considerable distance.
NorCal Dave
Senior Member.
I think we have 3-4 possibilities concerning the aircraft giving all we have is this photo:
- It's a real aircraft that someone managed to photograph. Either as a reflection with a UFO shaped rock, or with a UFO model, or it was used to composite a photo with a real aircraft and a fake UFO.
- It's a model of an aircraft, suspended from the tree to create the fake photo.
- It's a drawing or artistic representation of an aircraft on a piece of glass used to create a fake UFO photo.
- It's some sort of smudge or reflection that due to pareidolia many perceive as an aircraft, usually a Harrier. Like a man in a rowboat.
In the case of #1 and #2 we have a real aircraft to figure out. I would also argue that if #3 is the situation, whoever is trying to create a convincing UFO photo would want to draw something that resembles an actual aircraft.
From here, we can look at what was flying in the UK in the late '80s/early '90s and start by saying what the fuzzy thing is not. It's obviously not some sort of large or even small commercial aircraft. Same goes for large bomber type aircraft like the Vulcan, B52 or B1, although the B1 was popular in similar UFO photos of the time.
I don't think there's any way it has a second tail or twin vertical stabilizers. That would eliminate craft like the F14, or F15:
If we look at single tail aircraft, we also need to take into account the somewhat stubby front of the fuzzy one in the photo. It just doesn't seem to have the long pointed nose of things like the Tornado, or F111, both of which were also swing wing aircraft:
The aging F4 had distinctive down angled rear stabilizers and bottom mounted wings:
The F16 also has bottom to mid mounted wings and pointy front end:
None of these are good candidates for the fuzzy image aircraft. We're looking for a single tail, a stubby front section and what appears to be top mounted wings from the era. We have the A6 Intruder and the EA6 electronic warfare variant:
A "maybe", but almost too stubby up front and it was almost exclusively a carrier based aircraft.
As @flarkey suggested all the way back on page 2 or 3, there is the Hawker Hunter, something that was based in Scotland at the time
And the Hawker Harrier:
Single tail, top mounted wings and kinda stubby up front.
IF the photo is a fake, and I think it is, then the aircraft is likely a model or a drawing on glass or something similar. As such, the Harrier was probably the most famous UK aircraft at the time and a likely choice to use when faking a UFO photo. Unlike some other similar photos of the day that tried to depict a B1B bomber acting as an interceptor, the Harrier is a logical choice, especially for a UFO photo in the UK.
I think the MoD thought it was a Harrier, because whatever was used was supposed to be a Harrier. It just makes sense.
John J.
Senior Member.
I think yes, we can take it as certain that the UK Ministry of Defence would know where any of its combat jets were within a few hundred metres.
As well as reports from the pilots themselves- and in the past pilots have made unauthorized detours/ manoeuvres, e.g. (Wikipedia) The Hawker Hunter Tower Bridge incident of 1968- Britain is a modest-sized island with very dense civil air traffic, and corresponding civil radar and air traffic control cover. The RAF's detection and tracking systems, e.g. UK Air Defence Ground Environment and its predecessors, often had problems in their "advertised" capabilities- the ability to track large numbers of low-level strike aircraft actively deploying countermeasures- but tracking a single aircraft (or pair of aircraft) would not be one of them (excepting perhaps low-level contour-following flights as per the Mach Loop- these would be very noticeable, and audible, outside of the three overland Tactical Training Areas, particularly to angry farmers in more rural areas).
He or she would be able to find out if they had a need to know. Advising a government defense minister about the presence or absence of a given aircraft type at a specific time and location implies a need to know. MoD civil servants ultimately answer to elected ministers.
The UK armed forces have haven't got the financial resources, legal authority or sufficient volumes of clear airspace for combat jet units to make impromptu, unlogged flights over the UK, nor did they in 1990.
Yes, that has to be right.
I posted a picture of a GR5 arriving at Lossiemouth, July 1990 somewhere along the line. Any particular RAF type might be seen anywhere in the UK, and at some time or another most probably have been.
The Calvine/ Pitlochry area is no exception, but I think it's unlikely that there were Harriers present on the evening of August 4th, 1990 because the MoD minute (which was not in the public domain) says there were no Harriers present.
(This strongly indicates that the MoD can establish the whereabouts of British military aircraft- but I don't think that is seriously in question).
It is that simple. It looks like a Harrier to me. Unfortunately I can't demonstrate that it is a Harrier! -Or representation of one.
You describe it as "...a blurry dot", to others it might be someone in a rowing boat. Our problem is none of us can convincingly demonstrate what it might be (and as you point out, in the absence of more evidence this might be irresolvable).
Totally agree!
(Though maybe entertaining a lesser possibility that the photos were taken by someone other than the claimant, at who knows what location, and that they included real jets, the UFO somehow being added in later. This might explain why the claimant(s) didn't notice two jets).
You've stated something similar before, but again, what is it based on? Some (I think relevant) background re. the role and capabilities of JARIC etc., 1990 in post #1734. It seems likely that the relevant agencies could provide intel. summaries within hours of imagery being received, from multiple sources and of multiple "targets".
I agree that the tradesmen/ women examining the Calvine photos might not, as individuals, have regarded them with any great seriousness, but their personal opinions about the circumstances of the photos would have been irrelevant.
But Hunters were actually based in Scotland. 2-seater Hunter T7s and T8s were used as trainers for the Buccaneer strike aircraft at RAF Lossiemouth, October 1984 to October 1991. Lossiemouth is approx. 71 miles/ 114 km from Calvine.
A squadron of Jaguar single-sear attack aircraft also operated from Lossiemouth at this time.
Larger 2-seater Phantoms were based at RAF Leuchars (east coast of Scotland) for some years before being replaced by similar-sized Tornado ADVs from 1989 (43 Sqn.) and 1990 (111 Sqn.) Both types were interceptors, and make much more sense as a UFO "chase plane" than the subsonic (and in the case of Hunter, antiquated) Harrier or Hunter: Leuchars Phantoms and Tornado ADVs made up part of the Quick Reaction Alert air defence force.
So while Harriers visited Scotland frequently, someone in the MoD saying (or thinking) "It's a combat jet, it's in Scotland therefore it's a Harrier" doesn't make much sense to me (and I don't get why that would be "convenient").
Agreed. But that's not my (admittedly theoretical) contention, nor has it been.
My contention is:
It is not unreasonable to theorise that the six original photographs, and their negatives, contained more useable information in total, when all were considered, than the one image we get on our screens, which is a digitized image of perhaps a copy-of-a-copy.
The five lost photos and six original negatives need not be of much better, or even equal, quality to the image we are familiar with for this to be true.
We might not like the conclusions drawn by the MoD (though frankly I don't see them as in any way problematic), but that doesn't change the fact that the MoD received six original photos and negatives, and the 1991 repeat tasking archived in DEFE-31-180-1 indicates, very strongly indeed, that they had been reviewed by an appropriate defence intelligence agency.
The conclusion made by the only people who examined the original material (all the original material), and who had experience in photographic analyses (including, very frequently, of non-optimal images) and who probably knew what they were talking about was that they didn't know what "the diamond" was, but one jet was a Harrier and another jet was present, also probably a Harrier.
These conclusions might be incorrect, but our only evidence that this might be the case seems to be "...it doesn't look like a Harrier to me" when we look at our image on a computer screen, sans the original photograph and five others, sans the negatives, sans investigational optics.
The minute writer states that no Harriers were in the area at that time. This seems to me entirely consistent with a hoax.
Reading through the 3 sets of National Archives UFO reports, none are described as hoaxes IIRC; I strongly suspect this was a policy decision.
Agreed.
I've always felt that the supposed jet looked like a Harrier GR3, with the slender Ferranti laser nose "washed out" (if that's the right phrase) / otherwise obscured by some trick of the light.
Relatively small almost delta wings like in your Spanish AV-8A picture; later AV-8Bs (UK GR5-GR9) had larger, different-shaped wings and a raised cockpit and canopy.
Last edited:
Ann K
Senior Member.
I accept that fact. But what we don't have evidence of is whether or not they DID find out, which would depend upon how seriously they took the matter. I suggest that the answer to that certainly might be "not much", with the distinct possibility that the MoD official dismissed the whole thing as a silly story told by adolescents, and saw no reason to delve too deeply into it. After all, the salient feature of the photo(s) is the supposed mysterious thing that defied the laws of physics, and not the plane itself. If an investigator dismissed that out of hand, there is nothing to be gained by identifying the plane.
JMartJr
Senior Member.
Sure, somebody in the organization would know. But given an obvious hoax, would a real effort be made to go any further than "looks like a Harrier, don't know what the other thing is" and file it away. That would assume that there was reason not to call out a hoax, of course. I do not know the RAF policy at the time for how forthright to be labeling a hoax UFO as a hoax, as opposed to not making enemies and just ignoring such stuff...
John J.
Senior Member.
The re-tasking request found in National Archives file DEFE-31-180-1 (post #1734, PDF attached) makes that interpretation of events unlikely. Whatever the personal beliefs of those involved, the evidence is that an investigation did take place.
It makes clear that there was an original tasking in September 1990 (which has not been released to the National Archives; nothing specifically strange about that, it just indicates that the original tasking didn't involve Sec(AS)2, AKA the UFO desk).
The originator of the re-tasking is in DI-55, Defence Intelligence, not Sec(AS)2, or PR.
EX][Additionally, two poor-quality photocopies of Vu-Foils (images on transparent plastic) made from cropped versions of the original photographs were included in records assembled by DI55, a branch of the Directorate of Scientific and Technical Intelligence (DSTI) that dealt with missiles and air defence. (DEFE 31/180/1 – pages 36–7). These files revealed the images were the subject of an investigation by DI55 and a RAF photo analyst agency./EX]
Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvine_UFO_photograph; the DEFE-31-180-1 file is attached to post #1734.
The handwritten comment on the DIS(SP) Ops Imagery Tasking Form,
...would appear to be a reference to Number 4 Squadron, which operated Harriers in West Germany from 1970-1999.External Quote:
Maybe some RAFG crews conducted training in Scotland from early August 1990. It does suggest that the identification of the aircraft in the picture (if it is an aircraft) was pursued, not assumed.*
The claimants stated when and where their photos were taken.
If the aircraft can be identified, it would be relatively straightforward to establish if any of that type were in the area. If they were not, the story is a hoax. No further action except maybe an off-the record chat with the Daily Record.
*There are of course prosaic reasons why the MoD might want to investigate whether a military aircraft had been out-of-place.
John J.
Senior Member.
Yeah; I think there's PDFs of three National Archives releases of Sec(AS)2 files posted here.
I don't recall anyone's honesty (or sobriety, or sanity) ever being questioned directly.
The Ministry of Defence was operating its "UFO desk", its existence wasn't secret and it replied to members of the public.
I think it's highly likely that there was a firm policy of never directly expressing criticism or disbelief.
In the archives there's one or two instances of cover letters or brief notes between MoD/ Forces departments where a certain amount of scepticism might be detected.
owntheissue
Member
Probably.
The folk who were tasked with identifying adversary Aircraft incursions (DI55?) were not publicly acknowledged at the time so the Air Secretariat staff (via civ. servants such as Pope) provided a nice public facing, first pass, intelligence ingestion function.
Yes, you're obviously right—we don't have enough information and are tempted to speculate. What I'm personally skeptical about is the rather confident conclusion by the MoD in identifying the "jet" as a Harrier. But all things considered, I don't think it matters that much.
My main hypothesis is that the "jet" as well as the "UFO" are models suspended between two trees. If so, then the make of the toy plane isn't really that important—unless we could identify it as something like a Messerschmitt 262, a Space Shuttle, or anything else that clearly shouldn't be flying over Scotland in 1990. But since the blurry dot could be almost anything, a certain identification is virtually impossible.
JMartJr
Senior Member.
I'd add to the "shouldn't be flying over Scotland" list an American super-secret flying something so advanced it still has not been made public!" ^_^
Or, for that matter, alien spaceships.
But that's talking about the OTHER object in the picture...
Haha, yeah—agreed! The only reason the "jet" itself is interesting is the remote possibility that this could have been some kind of military exercise. Don't get me wrong, I don't think it is, but I don't think we can completely rule it out either. It could be some kind of radar decoy, balloon, blimp, kite, etc., used in an exercise. If so, than identifying the model of the plane might be useful. But the trouble is, we could write a list longer than Santa's naughty-and-nice combined explaining why that's probably not the case. And every time I go down that rabbit hole, I just end up picturing some bored guy in 1990, standing between two trees, grinning while dangling models from fishing wire.
John J.
Senior Member.
I think that's right, or at least the original intention behind Sec(AS)2.
DI55 were mainly concerned with information on missile and satellite technologies mainly obtained from other agency's assets.
"The first tranche of the Ministry of Defence wholesale UFO document release is now available", 14 March 2008, David Clarke (N.B. webpage not secure, link here).External Quote:
It might just be the coloring from the scan, but the canopy seems to have a slight gold coloration like the canopy of the F-22:
Obviously impossible due to the timeline. The shape is also vaguely reminiscent of an F-16 from the angle, except for the wings make no sense.
I think you're correct it's AI.
Sorry for commenting on such an old post, but I'm currently working on an article about the Calvine case for av Swedish magazine and stumbled upon an interesting detail. This could, of course, be a pure coincidence with no relevance to the case—but when I tried to recreate the photos using a 7 cm Dinky Toys Hawker Hunter, I never really figured out what the diamond-shaped object could be.
If the photos were faked this way, the diamond-shaped object would have to be relatively small and probably lightweight, suspended a few meters from the camera. (In my recreation I used a 50 mm lens, and the small jet was placed 3.6 meters from the camera. If the diamond object were at the same distance, it would be approximately 30 cm wide.) I never found any object that perfectly matched what we see in the photo—until I remembered your old post suggesting the object might resemble a kite.
That led me to dig through old UK kite magazines, mainly to see if I could find a kite resembling the Calvine object. In a 1990 issue of The Kiteflier, I came across this advertisement.
A few things stood out to me. First, the festival took place that very weekend in the hometown of the Daily Record. Second, the ad mentions "stunt kites" and "bring your own kite" for a world record attempt. Long-distance visitors could camp on site. In other words, a lot of young people interested in kites, camping together and probably having a beer or two. Could some of these visitors have decided to modify one of their kites, suspend it on fishing line, and create some "UFO photos"? It's pure speculation, of course, but I mentioned this to David Clarke, who said he had never heard of the festival and promised to try to get in touch with people in the kite community who might remember something.
This may well be a side note, and I'm not sure it means anything. But it does show that, even after years of investigation, it's still possible to find new pieces of the puzzle.
Giddierone
Senior Member.
Haha yeah, and maybe she owned a small Hawker Hunter toy
JMartJr
Senior Member.
Nice find. Early in this discussion, (Post #5) I'd said that I do not think it was a kite... if it IS a kite, it is almost certainly an Indian "patang" fighter kite, and one of those being in the ballpark of the size you calculate would be pretty common, they'd typically be about that size or larger. IF it is such a kite, we're seeing it almost edge on. Here is a "plan" view of a typical patang fighter of the sort we'd be looking for...
As mentioned in the earlier post, these are active fliers, darting about and spinning and such -- they aren't good for "posing" in flight for a picture. But I confess I was not thinking in terms of a kite just hanging there, I was thinking strictly of one being flown.they come in a wide assortment of colors and patterns, color would not show up in this picture, and at such a shallow angle and poor quality of the photo pattern might not matter much either.
Just hanging there, it might well work.
Being lightweight Mylar or tissue paper kites, even one hung on a string would be subject to moving about a fair bit in even a very small breeze -- but maybe it was dead calm there/then.
Once again, I am struck by how useful it would be to us if the other purported pictures were available. It would, for example, be really interesting to see if other pics showed a slightly "thicker" or slimmer UFO, which might indicate a flat object like a kite that was tilted slightly differently between pictures... I did manage to find a pic inside a kite store where some of these can be seen at different angles, over on the left
:
I am on vacation at the moment, but I have some of these at home and once I get home I can shoot pics of one at various angles, if anybody thinks there is anything more to be learned from that -- or might try hanging one from a tree branch to try and duplicate the UFO...
All that said, I don't see anything that makes me think "definitely a kite," but I would add "fighter kite hung from an overhead branch" to the list of other things that might have been hung up for a picture.
.
I'd love to see some photos taken from this kind of angle. It would be really interesting to see whether it's possible to recreate a scene like the one we see in the photo.
Regarding a suspended kite moving in the wind. Personally, I suspect the hoaxer used horizontal wires fastened between two trees. That would make it possible to suspend a kite even in slightly windy conditions.
JMartJr
Senior Member.
I'll give it a try. Traveling today, potentially snowed in and too cold tomorrow so it might be a few days. Feel free to drop me a note of reminder if needed!
JMartJr
Senior Member.
@Andreas, sorry for the delay, weather has not been cooperative! I finally just decided to mess with it indoors.This limits how far away from the kite I can get, but maybe it is still useful.
If weather ever is nice, I'll try it outdoors, I am curious as to how hard it is to get it to stay stab;e if there is any breeze, especially as the strings get long to stretch between trees instead of between chairs... Anyway, here's what I got today:
If weather ever is nice, I'll try it outdoors, I am curious as to how hard it is to get it to stay stab;e if there is any breeze, especially as the strings get long to stretch between trees instead of between chairs... Anyway, here's what I got today:
Mendel
Senior Member.
I'd like to see the pan continue to show the bottom view, if/when you do this again.
NorCal Dave
Senior Member.
If nothing else, this shows that the UFO could have been any number of shapes or objects captured at a particular angle. The Christmas ornament can clearly create something very similar when photographed at an unconventional angle, but that would hold true for lots of objects. And as it's a 2D photograph, I was able to get the look with a flat piece of wood and a bit of shading to create the illusion of 3D. Could have been lots of things.
JMartJr
Senior Member.
To clarify, do you want to see the other side of the kite (where the sticks are) or just what it looks like looking up from below?
Mendel
Senior Member.
Yes, please.
Thanks! Really interesting to see. It would be great if you could try doing this outdoors as well once the weather is a bit better. I'm sure the issue with perspective will disappear when it's seen from a longer distance. If the object in the Calvine photo is a kite, the distance between the camera and the kite would likely have been around 3–4 meters.
A kite would explain several details, such as the slightly uneven edges and the overall flat appearance. However, I'm having a bit of trouble understanding why the bottom half appears darker than the top half. A kite is, after all, quite flat. On the other hand, we could be looking at some kind of two-tone design, like this:
Regarding the small "knob": it could be a tail fin like the one your kite has, but it looks a bit rounder. I've seen this type of kite with tails or even tassels attached. Could it be some kind of attachment point for something like that? Or perhaps the fin is damaged or bent?
I think we can add a kite to the list of possible explanations, not least because of the kite festival taking place in Glasgow that very weekend.
Valid point! It's almost impossible to say what it is since we are only seeing a 2D silhouette. It could be a kite, a star, some piece of junk, or something custom-made. While experimenting with different techniques to create a hoax photograph a couple of years ago, I snapped this picture of a giant diamond towering over a local cul-de-sac:
One could speculate for decades about what this diamond might be. In reality, it is simply a cardboard cutout made from an empty cereal box.
deirdre
Senior Member
you think you could see a kite in Glasgow from Calvine?
And you have proof the photo was taken in the Calvine area?
deirdre
Senior Member
if not, then what's with adding jet models to your replications? just go somewhere where jets fly and hang a moldy ravioli from a tree.
I don't really understand your point. Why would a blurry jet silhouette indicate that the photo was taken near Calvine?
Regarding the "ravioli" dangling in front of a distant flying jet — well, I would love to see someone successfully recreate such a scenario while keeping both the "ravioli" and the distant jet reasonably in focus. If the object is a ravioli, it would be located roughly 35–40 cm from the camera (assuming the photographer used a 50mm lens), while the jet would be at a distance of about 750–800 meters. Good luck capturing that in a single photograph.
It's a terrible idea to photograph a small object close to the camera with a fast-moving jet in the distance. Regardless of whether the photo was taken near Calvine or in Kuala Lumpur, I'm sure a hoaxer would not choose this technique.
deirdre
Senior Member
my point is with all this assuming going on the options are basically limitless.
not that i mind people playing around and experimenting with techniques in real life.
But if you are going to go with kite (vs a piece of paper or cardboard or anything else) wouldnt it be more reasonable to NOT string it between two trees so we can cut teh string and it will fly straight up like the story?
John J.
Senior Member.
I'd guess the Calvine photo is a deliberate, planned hoax.
It might have been a spur of the moment thing, using something passably "UFO-shaped" that happened to be there after noticing a military aircraft (or aircraft plural), but I think this is less likely: It would take at least a little time to hang the "UFO", and combat jets don't often hang around for long (except during airshows, photo opportunities etc.)
It could be a kite, but a smaller object/ model might be more manageable (and less likely to be blown about, so needing less tethers to keep stable for the photo).
The Glasgow kite thing is probably a coincidence; it's summer (and during the school holidays), it's when these sort of things most often take place. Lots of other people would have flown kites in all sorts of locations across Scotland that summer.
If the object is a kite, I don't think colour is an issue, it could be painted.
It might have been a spur of the moment thing, using something passably "UFO-shaped" that happened to be there after noticing a military aircraft (or aircraft plural), but I think this is less likely: It would take at least a little time to hang the "UFO", and combat jets don't often hang around for long (except during airshows, photo opportunities etc.)
It could be a kite, but a smaller object/ model might be more manageable (and less likely to be blown about, so needing less tethers to keep stable for the photo).
The Glasgow kite thing is probably a coincidence; it's summer (and during the school holidays), it's when these sort of things most often take place. Lots of other people would have flown kites in all sorts of locations across Scotland that summer.
If the object is a kite, I don't think colour is an issue, it could be painted.
JMartJr
Senior Member.
I'll try to remember to do it -- again, feel free to remind me if needed~
That is possible, these kites come in a huge array of decorative patterns.
There is some variation in the shape of the fin at the tail, and of course as you say it could be bent or curled, there is normally no stick spreading the tail out, it's just flaps pf paper. I don't think it can be one of the tasseled ones, the tassel would hang down. (I've also seen them with tassels on the wing tips, which would not be the case here.)|
Yeah, I thought it unlikely it was a kite, but that festival makes it more intriguing.
Note that these are Indian subcontinent style fighters, there is a good presence of immigrants from that region in the British Isles. Also note that the point of the sport of flying kites for folks of Indian ancestry is to cut each other's kites down, after which they blow away (see: "The Kite Runner") It would be within the realm of possibility that somebody who did not even attend the festival might find one and decided to use it for a UFO prop.
John J.
Senior Member.
The report of the kite festival posted by @Giddierone (post #1779) looks pretty detailed! I think something as interesting as kite fighting would've been mentioned.
JMartJr
Senior Member.
If it was on the program, it likely would have been. But at most festivals, you get a fair amount of members of the public flying whatever they bring. We often have problems with fighter kite fans who show up with their kites and cutting thread (manja) and intentionally or accidentally cut down or damage some rather expensive kites. Most western events and many elsewhere have "no manja" rules, the enforcement of which is always tricky.
In short, it would not be at all surprising for "just folks" to show up with their fighter kites at an event who are not on the official program.
Perhaps — but yet again, it would be difficult to stage the scene, move the small jet (assuming it is a small model) while keeping everything reasonably in focus, and at the same time avoid the flying kite being completely smeared out by motion blur. Using stationary models is a good way of keeping control over the composition.
For me, it's not so much about proving exactly how it was done — the blurry repro photo provided by Lindsay is of too poor quality to tell for sure — it is rather about demonstrating that it could have been done. This is important, since some researchers continually claim that it would have been extremely difficult to hoax the alleged six photos, and that is simply not true.
Similar threads
