Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Alleged UFO or UAP, 1990, Calvine, Scotland

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Alleged UFO or UAP, 1990, Calvine, Scotland

Old 15th Aug 2022, 20:48
  #181 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Here are my own thoughts:

Mirror image/reflection in water.

There are a few debunkers who are speculating that the symmetry of the "UFO" (for want of a better word) in the image could be caused by a reflection in water. What they've forgotten about is where the photo was claimed to have been taken and ask themselves if there is a) a body of water in the vicinity which could provide a reflection and b) can that body of water be in the camera's lens/view.

Loch Tummel is in the direction of the camera lens, but it's far below at some 630m below Farragon Hill and miles away from it, thus a reflection in water is not going to produce any symmetry.

The aircraft, not the UFO.

I'm pretty sure the aircraft in the image is real. It does look like a Harrier, but it also looks like a Hunter. As far as RAF operations are concerned, this area was not one where anyone would expect a Harrier of whatever mark to train/fly and the MoD said there were no Harrier aircraft flying in the region at the time. Well they would say that wouldn't they!! However, that would make sense. If someone asks and the answer is no, it's not a conspiracy, but what about Hunters or even USMC Harriers? I had a brief google and 237 OCU (Operation Conversion Unit) Squadron were flying Hunters from RAF Lossiemouth at the time. Occam's Razor would suggest that's the likely case and some bugger has a logbook showing such!

Is there a possibility the aircraft is a USMC AV8B? I haven't spent the time to look into that, but I know there are far more knowledgable people than me who will know.

So how did such an image come about?

Having seen the video above, which matches the surrounding terrain and having looked into it as per my post above, I'm convinced that the photo shows the top of Farragon Hill with a Harrier/Hunter in the foreground heading along the valley and going west to east along one of the valleys.

I've done a good bit of hill walking and mountain biking in Scotland, albeit 25 years ago, but not in the region the photo was taken. There were plenty of times I saw low flying aircraft, including a pair of Tornados, way below Ben Etive coming into the valley via Loch Etive, as I was climbing up. You felt you could reach out and touch them. Obviously the aircraft photographed was much further away, but, as we all know, it's not unusual to see military aircraft at low level in Scotland.

I think the noise of that aircraft made them look in the general direction and see something that looked weird. The two chefs claimed that the object (UFO) was stationary for 10 minutes and that the aircraft circled around. The top of a mountain doesn't move. It's silent and not man-made. The only thing the top of a mountain doesn't do is shoot straight up having been stationary for 10 minutes.

I think there's much more to this story and it isn't aliens or secret US aircraft. I think the pair heard the aircraft, turned and watched, saw something they couldn't immediately explain, got spooked and took photos, but, because of the weather conditions at the time, the photographic quality of the camera and the way the negatives were produced ended up with what we see today and the idea of the UFO shooting straight up was part of them being spooked.

I've no explanation as to why the mountain top ended up being the only part of the photo, along with the aircraft, which were seen so clearly (along with the fence and overhanging tree) in the resulting photo, but I think that's simply the camera, the media, conditions and the way the negative was processed. We can only see the camera result, not the human eye.

I think this photo is genuine, but the interpretation is wrong as far as wishing this to be an alien craft or a 'black' US project.





iranu is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2022, 21:11
  #182 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Grid ref confused
Age: 63
Posts: 889
Received 24 Likes on 15 Posts
Iranu,
your analysis is spot on. It is an original, unadulterated image taken from where it was purported to have been taken. Your map, video and image work is spot on, as is your final sentence. A tiny, free- moveable shard of glass, probably chipped from the reflex mirror would give the diamond shape in the image, but would have fallen out of frame for subsequent shots, thus not appearing again on any frame.
cynicalint is online now  
Old 16th Aug 2022, 06:33
  #183 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2022
Location: UK
Posts: 56
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Hi All,
Fwiw, the metabunk forum is here: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/cal...othesis.12572/
The analysis by the Sheffield Hallam photography lecturer is here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QPq...grxm3uZ9r/view
And there's a forthcoming Q&A here:
Cheers
Matthew Illsley is offline  
Old 16th Aug 2022, 06:40
  #184 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2022
Location: UK
Posts: 56
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by iranu

I've no explanation as to why the mountain top ended up being the only part of the photo, along with the aircraft, which were seen so clearly (along with the fence and overhanging tree) in the resulting photo, but I think that's simply the camera, the media, conditions and the way the negative was processed. We can only see the camera result, not the human eye.

I think this photo is genuine, but the interpretation is wrong as far as wishing this to be an alien craft or a 'black' US project.
I think therein lies the problem. Some hoax explanations seem partially or superficially correct whilst having very big holes in them. On the other hand, there's lots of testimony (which is not evidence, I grant you) about this being real, a lot of which we can speak about in the Q&A.

The answer might lie with the witnesses, and believe you me, we've tried (and are still trying) to find them. Until and unless we do, I'm still a bit on the fence (in the foreground!). Cheers.
Matthew Illsley is offline  
Old 16th Aug 2022, 06:55
  #185 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: South East of Penge
Age: 74
Posts: 1,793
Received 8 Likes on 8 Posts
My guess is that the hoaxers got scared off of being identified as such.
Haraka is offline  
Old 16th Aug 2022, 20:06
  #186 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Grid ref confused
Age: 63
Posts: 889
Received 24 Likes on 15 Posts
Originally Posted by Haraka
My guess is that the hoaxers got scared off of being identified as such.
Exactly! They saw the aircraft below and tried to photograph it. The glass shard ws there when the film was exposed for that exposure and became apparrent when the film was processed. What followed was just speculation. The MOD would have said nothing as the exercise in determining a real picture of a UFO or not would have used techniques, then, that were probably classified and anyone who has worked with classified information knows it ios easier to store for 30 years than downgrade or get rid of it. This is just a hoax.
cynicalint is online now  
Old 17th Aug 2022, 10:32
  #187 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: South East of Penge
Age: 74
Posts: 1,793
Received 8 Likes on 8 Posts
Nothing ties in here that justifies further serious consideration:
No original negative has surfaced..
No probable Harrier was around at the time and place of the alleged sighting,
The claimed object moved in a way that no high speed American "Black Project"could reasonably be expected to do.
The anonymous 'witnesses" have absented themselves from being interviewed .
So pretty much no provenance to justify any further attempts at serious analysis
Nick Pope,of course, was a fairly junior desk clerk in the MoD Secretariat and never in the particular DIS environment where incoming imagery of interest was technically analysed by qualified engineering and imagery interpretion professionals. See https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve...80931-x2x9.pdf

Last edited by Haraka; 22nd Aug 2022 at 19:26.
Haraka is offline  
Old 17th Aug 2022, 20:04
  #188 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Great Britain
Age: 51
Posts: 342
Likes: 0
Received 11 Likes on 5 Posts
Fairly sure that your Harrier is actually a Hunter!





Corporal Clott is offline  
Old 18th Aug 2022, 08:52
  #189 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: South East of Penge
Age: 74
Posts: 1,793
Received 8 Likes on 8 Posts
I would suggest that the photo comparison just submitted rather seems to support the alternative Harrier contention ,.

Last edited by Haraka; 22nd Aug 2022 at 18:24.
Haraka is offline  
Old 30th Aug 2022, 17:09
  #190 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Wildest Surrey
Age: 75
Posts: 10,911
Received 112 Likes on 81 Posts
Take a look at 'Spectators Balcony' for a thread about the 'Aurora'
chevvron is offline  
Old 6th Mar 2023, 07:10
  #191 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2022
Location: UK
Posts: 56
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Calvine photographer identified

Hello Everyone,

The research team and I have an article in The Daily Record today that may be of interest. (Link below)

It names the photographer and even contains a photograph of him from 1990.

There will also be a chat about the Calvine case to be released at the end of the week on https://m.youtube.com/c/DisclosureTeamVinnie where we will go through how we have arrived at this point.

​​​​​​https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/s...-hold-29380068

Thanks
Matthew Illsley is offline  
Old 6th Mar 2023, 08:05
  #192 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: the far south
Posts: 612
Received 36 Likes on 15 Posts
Originally Posted by Matthew Illsley
Hello.

Some new info has come to light that might be of interest/use.

As we know, the MoD has always denied having Harriers in Scotland at the time/day when the Calvine photo was allegedly taken. They might well be telling the truth, or they might be being a little pedantic due to official secrecy and the nature of parliamentary answers, e.g.

Q: "Can the Minister please say whether the RAF had Harriers near Calvine at 9pm on 4th August 1990?"
A: "No, we didn't." (Unsaid: We had Harriers near Calvine at 8.55pm, but you didn't ask that.)

Anyway, according to Hansard, between 30th July and 3rd August 1990 (the day before the Calvine sighting allegedly occurred), the low-flying exercise Mallet Blow 90/2 was undertaken in northern England and the Borders region of Scotland (which doesn't include Calvine, but it's reasonably close).
In the 18 Mallet Blow exercises from Mallet Blow 84/1 to Mallet Blow 89/2, Harriers were involved in every instance.
In Mallet Blow 89/2, a total of 193 Tornadoes, Jaguars, Harriers, F-111s, F-16s, and F-18s took part, so it was quite large.
And in Mallet Blow 90/1, aircraft flew from the following bases:

RAF Brize Norton
RAF Coltishall
RAF Coningsby
RAF Cottesmore
RAF Honington
RAF Leeming
RAF Leuchars
RAF Linton-on-Ouse
RAF Marham
RAF Waddington
RAF Wattisham
RAF Wittering
A & AEE Boscombe Down
RAF Alconbury
RAF Bentwaters
RAF Lakenheath
RAF Upper Heyford
RAF Bruggen
RAF Laarbruch
331W
RAF Gutersloh
GAF BŁchel
GAF Bremgarten
GAF Leck
GAF Norvenich
NAEWF Geilenkirchen

A few thoughts/queries:

Q1. Do any old hands hence recall Mallet Blow 90/2 and the involvement of any Harriers, please?
Q2. During Mallet Blow exercises up to 90/2, night flying wasn't apparently permitted (11pm to 7am), and scheduled flying seemed to end 30 minutes after sunset. (Sunset on 4.8.1990 in Calvine was at 21:22, so in practical terms, was there enough time for a Harrier or two to be in the air at 9pm over Calvine and fly back to a nearby base by 21:52?)
Q3. If Mallet Blow 90/2 ended on Friday 3rd August 1990, might there have been any reason for a Harrier or two to just stay over in southern Scotland or northern England (at a base other than their home squadron base), and hence be in the air on Saturday 4th August?
Q4. Were exercises like Mallet Blow ever extended for 24 hours or into a weekend for any reason (bad weather, logistics, more practice requested)?

Thank you.
Yes there would have been Harriers on the Ex - there were on all Mallet Blow's
But your area is a long way from the Exercise area - the ground attack aircraft (such as Harrier) did not route over any part of Scotland. The route was essentially - Yorkshire Dales - Lake District - Spadeadam - Otterburn - Boulmer and down the East Coast - Reverse on Tuesday and Thursday!
The exercise would also essentially finish at lunch on Friday. Certainly no flying on Saturdays.
Red Herring I'm afraid
typerated is offline  
Old 6th Mar 2023, 08:42
  #193 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Glorious Devon
Posts: 2,811
Received 1,461 Likes on 884 Posts
Didnít we also establish in previous discussions that no Harriers were airborne anywhere that weekend? Certainly no UK owned Harriers anyway.
Ninthace is online now  
The following users liked this post:
Old 6th Mar 2023, 09:12
  #194 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,530
Received 3,290 Likes on 1,370 Posts
SNP arriving in Scotland?
NutLoose is online now  
Old 6th Mar 2023, 09:45
  #195 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2022
Location: UK
Posts: 56
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Yes, certainly from all the publicly available declassified squadron record books, there were no RAF Harriers in the air on Saturday 4th August 1990.

Cheers
Originally Posted by Ninthace
Didnít we also establish in previous discussions that no Harriers were airborne anywhere that weekend? Certainly no UK owned Harriers anyway.
Matthew Illsley is offline  
Old 6th Mar 2023, 10:30
  #196 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2022
Location: UK
Posts: 56
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
BAe Harriers

Hello
Previously, it was explained to me by people with RAF experience that military contractors like BAe sometimes used Hunters as in-flight camera platforms during tests of new vehicles.

It's now doing the rounds that BAe had its own Harriers. Does anyone have any knowledge to support or contradict that claim, please?

Thank you.
Matthew Illsley is offline  
Old 6th Mar 2023, 11:33
  #197 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Glorious Devon
Posts: 2,811
Received 1,461 Likes on 884 Posts
BAe is not listed as an operator and there is still the flying at the weekend issue.
List of Harrier operators - Wikipedia
Not listed in their historic fleet either
BAE Systems Fleet Details and History (planespotters.net)

Last edited by Ninthace; 6th Mar 2023 at 11:46.
Ninthace is online now  
The following users liked this post:
Old 6th Mar 2023, 11:45
  #198 (permalink)  
Gnome de PPRuNe
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Too close to Croydon for comfort
Age: 60
Posts: 12,954
Received 523 Likes on 301 Posts
BAe did operate the two seater demonstrator G-VTOL between 1970 and 1990, though I'd think the image doesn't suit the T.2's longer profile.
treadigraph is online now  
The following users liked this post:
Old 6th Mar 2023, 11:47
  #199 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,530
Received 3,290 Likes on 1,370 Posts
The picture in the Daily Record link is a lot more clearer. Surely if Aliens were going to visit the World they would choose an area with more intelligent life forms.





NutLoose is online now  
Old 6th Mar 2023, 11:55
  #200 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Glorious Devon
Posts: 2,811
Received 1,461 Likes on 884 Posts
The fins at the back are fun
Ninthace is online now  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.