The allegedly doctored photograph appears in the 101 Squadron F540/F541 for the period Apr-Aug 1982. The file was assembled by the AHB in late 1982, with the photograph forming part of the annexes. Unless we are to believe that there was some post-facto disassembly and reassembly of the document prior to public release (which, given the position/tautness of the treasury tags holding it together would have damaged the originals) the photo must be pretty contemporaneous, and added for internal (at SECRET level) consumption.
In this photograph, which is, as far as can be ascertained, an original, the runway is neither (to quote from the Word document) fuzzy nor has it 'grown a new crater'. It is also singularly lacking the craters seen in the recce photo by Charlie Cantan taken after BB2. Furthermore, if as the Word document claims, Charlie Cantan's photo was the first one taken after BB1, how on earth could Admiral Woodward know on 2nd May what the initial photographs of the raid appeared to show?
I don't currently have access to the two RE Journal articles of which I was originally thinking, but in Maj-Gen GB Sinclair, Brigadier FG Barton & Lt LJ Kennedy, 'Military Engineering in the Falkland Islands 1982-83',
Proceedings of the Institute of Civil Engineers Pt 1, 1984, Vol 76. (Feb).
'There was a single large crater on the runway caused by a 1,000lb bomb dropped by an RAF Vulcan... A plan was devised to repair the northern half of the runway first, thus avoiding the Vulcan crater in order that [RAF] Hercules could land as early as possible.... The northern half of the runway was repaired in three days and the first Hercules landed on 24 June right on schedule. The remaining repairs to the airport runway, including the large Vulcan crater, took longer...(pp.273-274)
Anyway, as these chaps only repaired the runway, their accounts are clearly unreliable. So, let's see what the Argentine BDA map has to say, shall we?
Ah, pity. Someone appears to have erroneously put a blob almost in the middle of the runway and, worse yet, has recorded it as a bomb from a Vulcan. How careless of them. And strangely enough, it appears that at least one Argentine soldier seems to remember that the bomb hit the runway - not bang in the middle, but the argument began with the bomb not hitting the runway at all to then not hitting bang in the middle.
On 1 May (UK time), C-in-C Fleet gave a verbal sitrep to No.10 (PREM 19/623) which states: 'The Vulcan cratered the middle of the run-way [sic] and the Harriers cratered either end of it'. Since the RAF couldn't have provided doctored photos to Admiral Fieldhouse and the Vulcan crew had no idea where the bomb landed, do we perhaps think that there might have been some photo-imagery or other information which suggested a bomb had landed on or near the centre?
And then, the Chiefs of Staff meeting, 17 May 1982 (FCO 7/4474)
There was considerable discussion about the exact state of Port Stanley airfield. DCDSI reported that the Vulcan raid landed one direct hit which had caused a crater of 50' in diameter. The raid on 4 May had scored no hits, but a subsequent raid by Sea Harriers had 'scarred' the runway. A further Sea Harrier attack on 16 May had caused one further crater. It appears, however, that the north edge of the runway is unharmed and that aircraft have a free run of 2000' and 1800' on either side of the main crater. [the one caused on 1 May]. This is adequate to allow a C-130 with a 12½ ton load to land and take off. No detailed information was available about the extent of damage... nor has there been any report as to where the other 1000lb bombs landed. The Chief of the Air Staff spoke very strongly about this, saying that he could not understand why photographic reconnaissance could not provide better information, and why repeated requests for information had received no reply.
So what we have is confusion over the amount of damage, but agreement from a variety of sources that the Vulcan did put a crater in the runway somewhere where it was perceived by intelligence sources, Argentine troops and the Royal Engineers who repaired the damn thing as being reasonably near to the middle.
Something may be being doctored here, but I'm beginning to think it's not the photograph.