On the Mull of Kintrye on the west coast of Scotland, you can find a rather long runway - in fact, I think it is the longest in Europe. RAF Machrihanish is remote, and the runway faced east-west, and was very convenient for work over the Atlantic. During WW2 it was very busy.
After the war, it was used by the USAF, who built the current long runway. Later on there were rumours that the US were staging the mythical Aurora spyplane (the alleged U2 successor) out of Campbletown.
Although as the largish town of Campbletown is three miles away, it wasn't exactly a 'secret' place to fly it from. AS with most such rumours, it was b'shit.
(Walking over the tops towards Machrihanish, and a couple of miles away from where the Chinook crashed a couple of decades ago, I came across a large rivetted piece of metal from a crashed plane. No idea which one...)
Apparently the runway at Machrihanish is so long it was on the list for emergency space shuttle landing spots
It was the longest runway in Scotland, but only 10,000’, same as most major international airports. Heathrow’s runways are more than 12,000’
Today I finally went to a cricket match with my wife and she quite enjoyed it. Though she did compare the final few overs to to the dying stages of a monopoly game, because the losing side were so far behind.
He is really quite convincing that this is a secret US stealth craft, floating in the sky. It explains almost everything
So all the debunkers saying "rock in a loch", "reflection", "hanging ornament", "mountaintop" are wrong, and badly wrong. Equally the UFOlogists convinced it is aliens are also wrong. Or so it seems
But WTF is that US tech?!
An interview with a photographer who claims to have seen all six photos. Very important distinction. You are so gullible at times.
DUH
Do some research. Watch that interview. The only non alien explanation that makes any sense is secret US tech
All the debunking theories have been debunked ("rock in a loch" etc). The idea it is some hugely elaborate 30 year long conspiracy is more far fetched than a US stealth craft
There is an ex-US base Machrihanish on the west coast of Scotland which fits this thesis exactly. The US is known to test new craft/tech on allies like the UK, to see how they perform in "action" - before using them against actual enemies. The planes are Tornadoes not Harriers, which explains the lack of Harriers in the records
This explains all the behaviour of the MoD, the letter to the US defence dept, and so on
That is not a Tornado in the photo you posted [a week or two back, the published shot]. Nose, tail, wings, intake, position of wings, all seem wrong. Had another look just now and that is still my conclusion, a Harrier. This is the first photo I found on google of a Tornado in about the same orientation. Note the huge fin and the flat surface over the intakes and inner wings
So there is something odd in that conclusion you mention.
Edit: the photo I link to is the bog standard Tornado variant, used by all users. There was another RAF (and Saudi) Tornado variant, the F.3. But basaically this just had a longer nose which would look even more different.
Are you sure? The photographer - a plane buff - goes into some details about this and concludes it was probably a Tornado
He also makes the point that you would not send a sluggish Harrier to intercept or accompany a fast craft, you’d send a zippier Tornado
On the other had my VERY amateur eye says Harrier and the MoD thought the same when they analysed the photos. And yet there were no Harriers in the sky that day, according to records
On topic: my view is that evidence will continue to come out that lockdowns had high costs for the benefits they brought and that fewer and fewer people will, retrospectively, support them. Though I do concede that "I believe I am right and in time people will agree" crops up quite a lot as a position to take.
Off topic, unable to use our tickets for day 4 of the test (credit btw to Lancashire for refunding me within minutes of the last wicket falling yesterday), my Dad and I have been to the Lake District. We had an absolutely perfect day on Dow Crag and the Old Man of Coniston (and a drink in the Black Bull, which is possibly my favourite pub.) Seven and a half miles and 2600 feet of ascent. My Dad is 75. He wasn't the oldest man on the Old Man but of the hundreds of people we saw today was probably in the top two. He was a little uncertain that he still had a walk like this in his legs and we had a couple of potential escape routes, but we did it. It was his second attempt at the Old Man, the first being in 1966, when the weather drew in and he got lost. So I was pleased to be with him when he eventually ticked it off. Also pretty proud of him. I hope I can still do that at 75. It was, by the way, wonderful up there. Possibly the finest view in England. Scafell Pike is higher, but the Old Man gives you views over Morecambe Bay, the Irish Sea, Windermere, the Duddon Valley, Helvellyn, the Langdales... everywhere you looked was dramatic and beautiful. And enjoyably busy at the top. I enjoy solitude, but I also enjoy seeing people enjoying my hobby and getting the same joy and satisfaction from the hills that I do.
What's in it for him? Why would he lie? He's now a video editor in a different field. He was completely convinced by the negs that this was a real aircraft in the sky. He is entirely pragmatic
You're right, no one has ever lied about seeing something they didn't.
Today I finally went to a cricket match with my wife and she quite enjoyed it. Though she did compare the final few overs to to the dying stages of a monopoly game, because the losing side were so far behind.
What's in it for him? Why would he lie? He's now a video editor in a different field. He was completely convinced by the negs that this was a real aircraft in the sky. He is entirely pragmatic
You're right, no one has ever lied about seeing something they didn't.
Of course people lie all the time. But to lie so elaborately, and convincingly, for two hours, on YouTube? Complete with his in depth pro analysis of cameras, film, lens, negs?
I need a motive for him to go to such lengths. I've checked out this guy and I cannot see it
If he is lying the conspiracy is fantastically intricate, clever, and prolonged, which raises profound questions by itself
What's in it for him? Why would he lie? He's now a video editor in a different field. He was completely convinced by the negs that this was a real aircraft in the sky. He is entirely pragmatic
You're right, no one has ever lied about seeing something they didn't.
Of course people lie all the time. But to lie so elaborately, and convincingly, for two hours, on YouTube? Complete with his in depth pro analysis of cameras, film, lens, negs?
I need a motive for him to go to such lengths. I've checked out this guy and I cannot see it
If he is lying the conspiracy is fantastically intricate, clever, and prolonged, which raises profound questions by itself
People crave attention. They also love knowing things that others don’t (cough - Finland rumour). It’s not beyond the bounds of possibility that someone makes shit up and gets their kicks from deceiving others. There are other possibilities. Some people come to believe their own lies. I knew one such at Uni 30 years ago. Told whoppers about events that we’d both been at that I knew were lies. But he had convinced himself they were true.
26% who said the lockdowns were not worth it though would be a sizeable chunk for say RefUK to target if PM Truss ever imposed another lockdown. For now though she has ruled that out
What's in it for him? Why would he lie? He's now a video editor in a different field. He was completely convinced by the negs that this was a real aircraft in the sky. He is entirely pragmatic
You're right, no one has ever lied about seeing something they didn't.
We could all offer to take Leon to see the Cottingley Fairies for a reasonable fee.
He is really quite convincing that this is a secret US stealth craft, floating in the sky. It explains almost everything
So all the debunkers saying "rock in a loch", "reflection", "hanging ornament", "mountaintop" are wrong, and badly wrong. Equally the UFOlogists convinced it is aliens are also wrong. Or so it seems
But WTF is that US tech?!
An interview with a photographer who claims to have seen all six photos. Very important distinction. You are so gullible at times.
DUH
Do some research. Watch that interview. The only non alien explanation that makes any sense is secret US tech
All the debunking theories have been debunked ("rock in a loch" etc). The idea it is some hugely elaborate 30 year long conspiracy is more far fetched than a US stealth craft
There is an ex-US base Machrihanish on the west coast of Scotland which fits this thesis exactly. The US is known to test new craft/tech on allies like the UK, to see how they perform in "action" - before using them against actual enemies. The planes are Tornadoes not Harriers, which explains the lack of Harriers in the records
This explains all the behaviour of the MoD, the letter to the US defence dept, and so on
That is not a Tornado in the photo you posted [a week or two back, the published shot]. Nose, tail, wings, intake, position of wings, all seem wrong. Had another look just now and that is still my conclusion, a Harrier. This is the first photo I found on google of a Tornado in about the same orientation. Note the huge fin and the flat surface over the intakes and inner wings
So there is something odd in that conclusion you mention.
Edit: the photo I link to is the bog standard Tornado variant, used by all users. There was another RAF (and Saudi) Tornado variant, the F.3. But basaically this just had a longer nose which would look even more different.
Are you sure? The photographer - a plane buff - goes into some details about this and concludes it was probably a Tornado
He also makes the point that you would not send a sluggish Harrier to intercept or accompany a fast craft, you’d send a zippier Tornado
On the other had my VERY amateur eye says Harrier and the MoD thought the same when they analysed the photos. And yet there were no Harriers in the sky that day, according to records
🤷♂️
Surely you'd send whichever aircraft was closest.
It still looks like a man in a rowing boat fishing to me.
He is really quite convincing that this is a secret US stealth craft, floating in the sky. It explains almost everything
So all the debunkers saying "rock in a loch", "reflection", "hanging ornament", "mountaintop" are wrong, and badly wrong. Equally the UFOlogists convinced it is aliens are also wrong. Or so it seems
But WTF is that US tech?!
An interview with a photographer who claims to have seen all six photos. Very important distinction. You are so gullible at times.
DUH
Do some research. Watch that interview. The only non alien explanation that makes any sense is secret US tech
All the debunking theories have been debunked ("rock in a loch" etc). The idea it is some hugely elaborate 30 year long conspiracy is more far fetched than a US stealth craft
There is an ex-US base Machrihanish on the west coast of Scotland which fits this thesis exactly. The US is known to test new craft/tech on allies like the UK, to see how they perform in "action" - before using them against actual enemies. The planes are Tornadoes not Harriers, which explains the lack of Harriers in the records
This explains all the behaviour of the MoD, the letter to the US defence dept, and so on
That is not a Tornado in the photo you posted [a week or two back, the published shot]. Nose, tail, wings, intake, position of wings, all seem wrong. Had another look just now and that is still my conclusion, a Harrier. This is the first photo I found on google of a Tornado in about the same orientation. Note the huge fin and the flat surface over the intakes and inner wings
So there is something odd in that conclusion you mention.
Edit: the photo I link to is the bog standard Tornado variant, used by all users. There was another RAF (and Saudi) Tornado variant, the F.3. But basaically this just had a longer nose which would look even more different.
Are you sure? The photographer - a plane buff - goes into some details about this and concludes it was probably a Tornado
He also makes the point that you would not send a sluggish Harrier to intercept or accompany a fast craft, you’d send a zippier Tornado
On the other had my VERY amateur eye says Harrier and the MoD thought the same when they analysed the photos. And yet there were no Harriers in the sky that day, according to records
He is really quite convincing that this is a secret US stealth craft, floating in the sky. It explains almost everything
So all the debunkers saying "rock in a loch", "reflection", "hanging ornament", "mountaintop" are wrong, and badly wrong. Equally the UFOlogists convinced it is aliens are also wrong. Or so it seems
But WTF is that US tech?!
An interview with a photographer who claims to have seen all six photos. Very important distinction. You are so gullible at times.
DUH
Do some research. Watch that interview. The only non alien explanation that makes any sense is secret US tech
All the debunking theories have been debunked ("rock in a loch" etc). The idea it is some hugely elaborate 30 year long conspiracy is more far fetched than a US stealth craft
There is an ex-US base Machrihanish on the west coast of Scotland which fits this thesis exactly. The US is known to test new craft/tech on allies like the UK, to see how they perform in "action" - before using them against actual enemies. The planes are Tornadoes not Harriers, which explains the lack of Harriers in the records
This explains all the behaviour of the MoD, the letter to the US defence dept, and so on
That is not a Tornado in the photo you posted [a week or two back, the published shot]. Nose, tail, wings, intake, position of wings, all seem wrong. Had another look just now and that is still my conclusion, a Harrier. This is the first photo I found on google of a Tornado in about the same orientation. Note the huge fin and the flat surface over the intakes and inner wings
So there is something odd in that conclusion you mention.
Edit: the photo I link to is the bog standard Tornado variant, used by all users. There was another RAF (and Saudi) Tornado variant, the F.3. But basaically this just had a longer nose which would look even more different.
Are you sure? The photographer - a plane buff - goes into some details about this and concludes it was probably a Tornado
He also makes the point that you would not send a sluggish Harrier to intercept or accompany a fast craft, you’d send a zippier Tornado
On the other had my VERY amateur eye says Harrier and the MoD thought the same when they analysed the photos. And yet there were no Harriers in the sky that day, according to records
🤷♂️
Hmm. THis (below) is the photo you posted, isn't it? Said to be 1 of 6 prints?
That's what I was looking at and talking about just now and that is a Harrier. Call this image A.
I hadn't seen this new image which we will call B. Hmm. I can't see the new plane very clearly - but ignore that for a moment and look at the photo as a whole. T
A Harrier would bimble along at what, something of the order of 400-500kn if trying moderately, but that is still 400-500 nautical miles an hour. That's about 300 yards a second.
This is low level, so a Tornado can't fly as fast as it can at altitude - Wiki says maximum speed 800kn near sea level.
A Tornado is about 16-19m long, dep. on variant - a Harrier is a bit less, 14m or so. So the planes are at about the same distance from the camera. And they are flying at a speed potentially measured in dozens of plane lengths per second -[edit] 20-ish for the Harrier, 50-ish for the Tornado?
But when one compares pics A and B they have the same relationship between the tail end of the thingy, the front corner of the let's-say-for-now-it-is-a-Harrier fin, and the right top corner of the fencepost - all in a straight line, pretty much. The foliage and fence posts are very similar.
This\ sort of in-a-line relationship is VERY sensitive to change - I use it for checking same vs different typesettings of books printed by the same firm from the same type (which can be unbelievably similar, but the technique works every time when you look at a few sample pages).
I'd say that the time between pics A and B is so small that it's not discernible on the rough online images we have. Therte is no sense of tracking (shame we don't have a background). Yet a Tornado has suddenly appeared in the shot in pic B?
He is really quite convincing that this is a secret US stealth craft, floating in the sky. It explains almost everything
So all the debunkers saying "rock in a loch", "reflection", "hanging ornament", "mountaintop" are wrong, and badly wrong. Equally the UFOlogists convinced it is aliens are also wrong. Or so it seems
But WTF is that US tech?!
An interview with a photographer who claims to have seen all six photos. Very important distinction. You are so gullible at times.
DUH
Do some research. Watch that interview. The only non alien explanation that makes any sense is secret US tech
All the debunking theories have been debunked ("rock in a loch" etc). The idea it is some hugely elaborate 30 year long conspiracy is more far fetched than a US stealth craft
There is an ex-US base Machrihanish on the west coast of Scotland which fits this thesis exactly. The US is known to test new craft/tech on allies like the UK, to see how they perform in "action" - before using them against actual enemies. The planes are Tornadoes not Harriers, which explains the lack of Harriers in the records
This explains all the behaviour of the MoD, the letter to the US defence dept, and so on
That is not a Tornado in the photo you posted [a week or two back, the published shot]. Nose, tail, wings, intake, position of wings, all seem wrong. Had another look just now and that is still my conclusion, a Harrier. This is the first photo I found on google of a Tornado in about the same orientation. Note the huge fin and the flat surface over the intakes and inner wings
So there is something odd in that conclusion you mention.
Edit: the photo I link to is the bog standard Tornado variant, used by all users. There was another RAF (and Saudi) Tornado variant, the F.3. But basaically this just had a longer nose which would look even more different.
Are you sure? The photographer - a plane buff - goes into some details about this and concludes it was probably a Tornado
He also makes the point that you would not send a sluggish Harrier to intercept or accompany a fast craft, you’d send a zippier Tornado
On the other had my VERY amateur eye says Harrier and the MoD thought the same when they analysed the photos. And yet there were no Harriers in the sky that day, according to records
🤷♂️
Surely you'd send whichever aircraft was closest.
Surely the RAF would send SeanT? He's always as high as a kite, so he'd already be at altitude...
What's in it for him? Why would he lie? He's now a video editor in a different field. He was completely convinced by the negs that this was a real aircraft in the sky. He is entirely pragmatic
You're right, no one has ever lied about seeing something they didn't.
Of course people lie all the time. But to lie so elaborately, and convincingly, for two hours, on YouTube? Complete with his in depth pro analysis of cameras, film, lens, negs?
I need a motive for him to go to such lengths. I've checked out this guy and I cannot see it
If he is lying the conspiracy is fantastically intricate, clever, and prolonged, which raises profound questions by itself
People crave attention. They also love knowing things that others don’t (cough - Finland rumour). It’s not beyond the bounds of possibility that someone makes shit up and gets their kicks from deceiving others. There are other possibilities. Some people come to believe their own lies. I knew one such at Uni 30 years ago. Told whoppers about events that we’d both been at that I knew were lies. But he had convinced himself they were true.
There is no evidence of him craving attention. He says in that video it is the one (unpaid) interview he will do. After that, zip. He doesn't want to become "the Calvine guy"
He has 400 followers on Twitter. He's not some publicity prostitute, as far as I can see
Moreover, he is taking a silly risk if he IS lying. He has a respectable and quite successful career in video editing. Why endanger all that to tell massively embroidered fibs on YouTube?
I believe he is legit and he is honestly saying what he saw: six negatives of the Calvine incident. We already know one must exist because we've seen the result
However, he could still be wholly mistaken in what he believes he saw. And he might have seen cleverly hoaxed photos
He is really quite convincing that this is a secret US stealth craft, floating in the sky. It explains almost everything
So all the debunkers saying "rock in a loch", "reflection", "hanging ornament", "mountaintop" are wrong, and badly wrong. Equally the UFOlogists convinced it is aliens are also wrong. Or so it seems
But WTF is that US tech?!
An interview with a photographer who claims to have seen all six photos. Very important distinction. You are so gullible at times.
DUH
Do some research. Watch that interview. The only non alien explanation that makes any sense is secret US tech
All the debunking theories have been debunked ("rock in a loch" etc). The idea it is some hugely elaborate 30 year long conspiracy is more far fetched than a US stealth craft
There is an ex-US base Machrihanish on the west coast of Scotland which fits this thesis exactly. The US is known to test new craft/tech on allies like the UK, to see how they perform in "action" - before using them against actual enemies. The planes are Tornadoes not Harriers, which explains the lack of Harriers in the records
This explains all the behaviour of the MoD, the letter to the US defence dept, and so on
That is not a Tornado in the photo you posted [a week or two back, the published shot]. Nose, tail, wings, intake, position of wings, all seem wrong. Had another look just now and that is still my conclusion, a Harrier. This is the first photo I found on google of a Tornado in about the same orientation. Note the huge fin and the flat surface over the intakes and inner wings
So there is something odd in that conclusion you mention.
Edit: the photo I link to is the bog standard Tornado variant, used by all users. There was another RAF (and Saudi) Tornado variant, the F.3. But basaically this just had a longer nose which would look even more different.
Are you sure? The photographer - a plane buff - goes into some details about this and concludes it was probably a Tornado
He also makes the point that you would not send a sluggish Harrier to intercept or accompany a fast craft, you’d send a zippier Tornado
On the other had my VERY amateur eye says Harrier and the MoD thought the same when they analysed the photos. And yet there were no Harriers in the sky that day, according to records
🤷♂️
Surely you'd send whichever aircraft was closest.
It still looks like a man in a rowing boat fishing to me.
Isn't the big thing a hilltop and its reflection in the water?
He is really quite convincing that this is a secret US stealth craft, floating in the sky. It explains almost everything
So all the debunkers saying "rock in a loch", "reflection", "hanging ornament", "mountaintop" are wrong, and badly wrong. Equally the UFOlogists convinced it is aliens are also wrong. Or so it seems
But WTF is that US tech?!
An interview with a photographer who claims to have seen all six photos. Very important distinction. You are so gullible at times.
DUH
Do some research. Watch that interview. The only non alien explanation that makes any sense is secret US tech
All the debunking theories have been debunked ("rock in a loch" etc). The idea it is some hugely elaborate 30 year long conspiracy is more far fetched than a US stealth craft
There is an ex-US base Machrihanish on the west coast of Scotland which fits this thesis exactly. The US is known to test new craft/tech on allies like the UK, to see how they perform in "action" - before using them against actual enemies. The planes are Tornadoes not Harriers, which explains the lack of Harriers in the records
This explains all the behaviour of the MoD, the letter to the US defence dept, and so on
That is not a Tornado in the photo you posted [a week or two back, the published shot]. Nose, tail, wings, intake, position of wings, all seem wrong. Had another look just now and that is still my conclusion, a Harrier. This is the first photo I found on google of a Tornado in about the same orientation. Note the huge fin and the flat surface over the intakes and inner wings
So there is something odd in that conclusion you mention.
Edit: the photo I link to is the bog standard Tornado variant, used by all users. There was another RAF (and Saudi) Tornado variant, the F.3. But basaically this just had a longer nose which would look even more different.
Are you sure? The photographer - a plane buff - goes into some details about this and concludes it was probably a Tornado
He also makes the point that you would not send a sluggish Harrier to intercept or accompany a fast craft, you’d send a zippier Tornado
On the other had my VERY amateur eye says Harrier and the MoD thought the same when they analysed the photos. And yet there were no Harriers in the sky that day, according to records
🤷♂️
There were no AMERICAN Harriers about that day.
Doesn't rule out RN/RAF ones.
Or other NATO (Spanish, Italian) or even manufacturers' test/development flights (none ever flown preserved in the UK that I can recall).
He is really quite convincing that this is a secret US stealth craft, floating in the sky. It explains almost everything
So all the debunkers saying "rock in a loch", "reflection", "hanging ornament", "mountaintop" are wrong, and badly wrong. Equally the UFOlogists convinced it is aliens are also wrong. Or so it seems
But WTF is that US tech?!
An interview with a photographer who claims to have seen all six photos. Very important distinction. You are so gullible at times.
DUH
Do some research. Watch that interview. The only non alien explanation that makes any sense is secret US tech
All the debunking theories have been debunked ("rock in a loch" etc). The idea it is some hugely elaborate 30 year long conspiracy is more far fetched than a US stealth craft
There is an ex-US base Machrihanish on the west coast of Scotland which fits this thesis exactly. The US is known to test new craft/tech on allies like the UK, to see how they perform in "action" - before using them against actual enemies. The planes are Tornadoes not Harriers, which explains the lack of Harriers in the records
This explains all the behaviour of the MoD, the letter to the US defence dept, and so on
That is not a Tornado in the photo you posted [a week or two back, the published shot]. Nose, tail, wings, intake, position of wings, all seem wrong. Had another look just now and that is still my conclusion, a Harrier. This is the first photo I found on google of a Tornado in about the same orientation. Note the huge fin and the flat surface over the intakes and inner wings
So there is something odd in that conclusion you mention.
Edit: the photo I link to is the bog standard Tornado variant, used by all users. There was another RAF (and Saudi) Tornado variant, the F.3. But basaically this just had a longer nose which would look even more different.
Are you sure? The photographer - a plane buff - goes into some details about this and concludes it was probably a Tornado
He also makes the point that you would not send a sluggish Harrier to intercept or accompany a fast craft, you’d send a zippier Tornado
On the other had my VERY amateur eye says Harrier and the MoD thought the same when they analysed the photos. And yet there were no Harriers in the sky that day, according to records
🤷♂️
Hmm. THis (below) is the photo you posted, isn't it? Said to be 1 of 6 prints?
That's what I was looking at and talking about just now and that is a Harrier. Call this image A.
I hadn't seen this new image which we will call B. Hmm. I can't see the new plane very clearly - but ignore that for a moment and look at the photo as a whole. T
A Harrier would bimble along at what, something of the order of 400-500kn if trying moderately, but that is still 400-500 nautical miles an hour. That's about 300 yards a second.
This is low level, so a Tornado can't fly as fast as it can at altitude - Wiki says maximum speed 800kn near sea level.
A Tornado is about 16-19m long, dep. on variant - a Harrier is a bit less, 14m or so. So the planes are at about the same distance from the camera. And they are flying at a speed potentially measured in dozens of plane lengths per second -[edit] 20-ish for the Harrier, 50-ish for the Tornado?
But when one compares pics A and B they have the same relationship between the tail end of the thingy, the front corner of the let's-say-for-now-it-is-a-Harrier fin, and the right top corner of the fencepost - all in a straight line, pretty much. The foliage and fence posts are very similar.
This\ sort of in-a-line relationship is VERY sensitive to change - I use it for checking same vs different typesettings of books printed by the same firm from the same type (which can be unbelievably similar, but the technique works every time when you look at a few sample pages).
I'd say that the time between pics A and B is so small that it's not discernible on the rough online images we have. Therte is no sense of tracking (shame we don't have a background). Yet a Tornado has suddenly appeared in the shot in pic B?
No, you misunderstand
This photo above is a mock-up. The photographer has inserted a blurry photo of a Tornado in roughly the same place as the ACTUAL plane in the Real Photo, to show how he thinks the actual plane could be a Tornado not a Harrier (but blurred by bad reproduction and speed of the airplane)
It's worth watching the entire interview if you have time, to grasp everything he says. I skipped some of the totally boring camera analysis stuff, but he definitely knows his shit, right down to the type of film used
Intriguingly, he says he saw a second plane in one of the negatives. This conforms with the MoD analysis of the photos, they also mention a just-about-visible second plane. But they concluded, of course, that both planes were Harriers
He is really quite convincing that this is a secret US stealth craft, floating in the sky. It explains almost everything
So all the debunkers saying "rock in a loch", "reflection", "hanging ornament", "mountaintop" are wrong, and badly wrong. Equally the UFOlogists convinced it is aliens are also wrong. Or so it seems
But WTF is that US tech?!
An interview with a photographer who claims to have seen all six photos. Very important distinction. You are so gullible at times.
DUH
Do some research. Watch that interview. The only non alien explanation that makes any sense is secret US tech
All the debunking theories have been debunked ("rock in a loch" etc). The idea it is some hugely elaborate 30 year long conspiracy is more far fetched than a US stealth craft
There is an ex-US base Machrihanish on the west coast of Scotland which fits this thesis exactly. The US is known to test new craft/tech on allies like the UK, to see how they perform in "action" - before using them against actual enemies. The planes are Tornadoes not Harriers, which explains the lack of Harriers in the records
This explains all the behaviour of the MoD, the letter to the US defence dept, and so on
That is not a Tornado in the photo you posted [a week or two back, the published shot]. Nose, tail, wings, intake, position of wings, all seem wrong. Had another look just now and that is still my conclusion, a Harrier. This is the first photo I found on google of a Tornado in about the same orientation. Note the huge fin and the flat surface over the intakes and inner wings
So there is something odd in that conclusion you mention.
Edit: the photo I link to is the bog standard Tornado variant, used by all users. There was another RAF (and Saudi) Tornado variant, the F.3. But basaically this just had a longer nose which would look even more different.
Are you sure? The photographer - a plane buff - goes into some details about this and concludes it was probably a Tornado
He also makes the point that you would not send a sluggish Harrier to intercept or accompany a fast craft, you’d send a zippier Tornado
On the other had my VERY amateur eye says Harrier and the MoD thought the same when they analysed the photos. And yet there were no Harriers in the sky that day, according to records
🤷♂️
Hmm. THis (below) is the photo you posted, isn't it? Said to be 1 of 6 prints?
That's what I was looking at and talking about just now and that is a Harrier. Call this image A.
I hadn't seen this new image which we will call B. Hmm. I can't see the new plane very clearly - but ignore that for a moment and look at the photo as a whole. T
A Harrier would bimble along at what, something of the order of 400-500kn if trying moderately, but that is still 400-500 nautical miles an hour. That's about 300 yards a second.
This is low level, so a Tornado can't fly as fast as it can at altitude - Wiki says maximum speed 800kn near sea level.
A Tornado is about 16-19m long, dep. on variant - a Harrier is a bit less, 14m or so. So the planes are at about the same distance from the camera. And they are flying at a speed potentially measured in dozens of plane lengths per second -[edit] 20-ish for the Harrier, 50-ish for the Tornado?
But when one compares pics A and B they have the same relationship between the tail end of the thingy, the front corner of the let's-say-for-now-it-is-a-Harrier fin, and the right top corner of the fencepost - all in a straight line, pretty much. The foliage and fence posts are very similar.
This\ sort of in-a-line relationship is VERY sensitive to change - I use it for checking same vs different typesettings of books printed by the same firm from the same type (which can be unbelievably similar, but the technique works every time when you look at a few sample pages).
I'd say that the time between pics A and B is so small that it's not discernible on the rough online images we have. Therte is no sense of tracking (shame we don't have a background). Yet a Tornado has suddenly appeared in the shot in pic B?
No, you misunderstand
This photo above is a mock-up. The photographer has inserted a blurry photo of a Tornado in roughly the same place as the ACTUAL plane in the Real Photo, to show how he thinks the actual plane could be a Tornado not a Harrier (but blurred by bad reproduction and speed of the airplane)
It's worth watching the entire interview if you have time, to grasp everything he says. I skipped some of the totally boring camera analysis stuff, but he definitely knows his shit, right down to the type of film used
Intriguingly, he says he saw a second plane in one of the negatives. This conforms with the MoD analysis of the photos, they also mention a just-about-visible second plane. But they concluded, of course, that both planes were Harriers
Thanks. Still doesn't look like a Tornado to me. Actually, his attempt only makes me feel more and m ore that we are seeing a Harrier not a Tornado in the original pic.
The jizz* is all wrong for a Tornado, and I had no [edit] prior reason to pick a Harrier rather than a Tornado when looking at the original. .
*sensu twitcher.
Edit: I did consider what other options there might be if it weren't a Harrier, but option 2 was a Hawk (unsurprisingly, as form the same design team).
He is really quite convincing that this is a secret US stealth craft, floating in the sky. It explains almost everything
So all the debunkers saying "rock in a loch", "reflection", "hanging ornament", "mountaintop" are wrong, and badly wrong. Equally the UFOlogists convinced it is aliens are also wrong. Or so it seems
But WTF is that US tech?!
An interview with a photographer who claims to have seen all six photos. Very important distinction. You are so gullible at times.
DUH
Do some research. Watch that interview. The only non alien explanation that makes any sense is secret US tech
All the debunking theories have been debunked ("rock in a loch" etc). The idea it is some hugely elaborate 30 year long conspiracy is more far fetched than a US stealth craft
There is an ex-US base Machrihanish on the west coast of Scotland which fits this thesis exactly. The US is known to test new craft/tech on allies like the UK, to see how they perform in "action" - before using them against actual enemies. The planes are Tornadoes not Harriers, which explains the lack of Harriers in the records
This explains all the behaviour of the MoD, the letter to the US defence dept, and so on
That is not a Tornado in the photo you posted [a week or two back, the published shot]. Nose, tail, wings, intake, position of wings, all seem wrong. Had another look just now and that is still my conclusion, a Harrier. This is the first photo I found on google of a Tornado in about the same orientation. Note the huge fin and the flat surface over the intakes and inner wings
So there is something odd in that conclusion you mention.
Edit: the photo I link to is the bog standard Tornado variant, used by all users. There was another RAF (and Saudi) Tornado variant, the F.3. But basaically this just had a longer nose which would look even more different.
Are you sure? The photographer - a plane buff - goes into some details about this and concludes it was probably a Tornado
He also makes the point that you would not send a sluggish Harrier to intercept or accompany a fast craft, you’d send a zippier Tornado
On the other had my VERY amateur eye says Harrier and the MoD thought the same when they analysed the photos. And yet there were no Harriers in the sky that day, according to records
🤷♂️
Surely you'd send whichever aircraft was closest.
If you accept that the photos show an actual incident in the air then it becomes a question: why are the planes there? They could be deliberately accompanying the UFO thingy, in which case they might be American, or they could be buzzing it to check it out, so probably British?
He is really quite convincing that this is a secret US stealth craft, floating in the sky. It explains almost everything
So all the debunkers saying "rock in a loch", "reflection", "hanging ornament", "mountaintop" are wrong, and badly wrong. Equally the UFOlogists convinced it is aliens are also wrong. Or so it seems
But WTF is that US tech?!
An interview with a photographer who claims to have seen all six photos. Very important distinction. You are so gullible at times.
DUH
Do some research. Watch that interview. The only non alien explanation that makes any sense is secret US tech
All the debunking theories have been debunked ("rock in a loch" etc). The idea it is some hugely elaborate 30 year long conspiracy is more far fetched than a US stealth craft
There is an ex-US base Machrihanish on the west coast of Scotland which fits this thesis exactly. The US is known to test new craft/tech on allies like the UK, to see how they perform in "action" - before using them against actual enemies. The planes are Tornadoes not Harriers, which explains the lack of Harriers in the records
This explains all the behaviour of the MoD, the letter to the US defence dept, and so on
That is not a Tornado in the photo you posted [a week or two back, the published shot]. Nose, tail, wings, intake, position of wings, all seem wrong. Had another look just now and that is still my conclusion, a Harrier. This is the first photo I found on google of a Tornado in about the same orientation. Note the huge fin and the flat surface over the intakes and inner wings
So there is something odd in that conclusion you mention.
Edit: the photo I link to is the bog standard Tornado variant, used by all users. There was another RAF (and Saudi) Tornado variant, the F.3. But basaically this just had a longer nose which would look even more different.
Are you sure? The photographer - a plane buff - goes into some details about this and concludes it was probably a Tornado
He also makes the point that you would not send a sluggish Harrier to intercept or accompany a fast craft, you’d send a zippier Tornado
On the other had my VERY amateur eye says Harrier and the MoD thought the same when they analysed the photos. And yet there were no Harriers in the sky that day, according to records
🤷♂️
Hmm. THis (below) is the photo you posted, isn't it? Said to be 1 of 6 prints?
That's what I was looking at and talking about just now and that is a Harrier. Call this image A.
I hadn't seen this new image which we will call B. Hmm. I can't see the new plane very clearly - but ignore that for a moment and look at the photo as a whole. T
A Harrier would bimble along at what, something of the order of 400-500kn if trying moderately, but that is still 400-500 nautical miles an hour. That's about 300 yards a second.
This is low level, so a Tornado can't fly as fast as it can at altitude - Wiki says maximum speed 800kn near sea level.
A Tornado is about 16-19m long, dep. on variant - a Harrier is a bit less, 14m or so. So the planes are at about the same distance from the camera. And they are flying at a speed potentially measured in dozens of plane lengths per second -[edit] 20-ish for the Harrier, 50-ish for the Tornado?
But when one compares pics A and B they have the same relationship between the tail end of the thingy, the front corner of the let's-say-for-now-it-is-a-Harrier fin, and the right top corner of the fencepost - all in a straight line, pretty much. The foliage and fence posts are very similar.
This\ sort of in-a-line relationship is VERY sensitive to change - I use it for checking same vs different typesettings of books printed by the same firm from the same type (which can be unbelievably similar, but the technique works every time when you look at a few sample pages).
I'd say that the time between pics A and B is so small that it's not discernible on the rough online images we have. Therte is no sense of tracking (shame we don't have a background). Yet a Tornado has suddenly appeared in the shot in pic B?
No, you misunderstand
This photo above is a mock-up. The photographer has inserted a blurry photo of a Tornado in roughly the same place as the ACTUAL plane in the Real Photo, to show how he thinks the actual plane could be a Tornado not a Harrier (but blurred by bad reproduction and speed of the airplane)
It's worth watching the entire interview if you have time, to grasp everything he says. I skipped some of the totally boring camera analysis stuff, but he definitely knows his shit, right down to the type of film used
Intriguingly, he says he saw a second plane in one of the negatives. This conforms with the MoD analysis of the photos, they also mention a just-about-visible second plane. But they concluded, of course, that both planes were Harriers
Thanks. Still doesn't look like a Tornado to me. Actually, his attempt only makes me feel more and m ore that we are seeing a Harrier not a Tornado in the original pic.
The jizz* is all wrong for a Tornado, and I had no [edit] prior reason to pick a Harrier rather than a Tornado when looking at the original. .
*sensu twitcher.
Edit: I did consider what other options there might be if it weren't a Harrier, but option 2 was a Hawk (unsurprisingly, as form the same design team).
Looks awesome. Down in Devon with our classic mini, and a fair number of land based ones around. I like them. They don’t disrupt farming below them, are graceful and are helping to reach net zero. No idea why anyone would be against, potentially national parks excepted.
Birds
I’d argue largely exaggerated.
There are always made up excuses for Nimbyism. The sole objection to onshore wind turbines virtually everywhere outside very sensitive landscapes (AONBs, nature reserves, etc.) is "I'm frightened it'll reduce the value of my house" and those advancing alternative suggestions - typically elderly homeowners who, when they aren't being Nimbies, are whining that they need their pensions boosting by another three billion percent because of the cost of electricity - are lying because they don't want to admit to caring about nobody and nothing but their hoard of personal wealth. It's precisely the same for virtually every objection ever raised to the construction of new build homes. Fuck em.
I'm one of those you decry, and I don't know a single senior citizen who fits your hysterical description.
To be fair, some wind farms generate low frequency noise that *some* people find pretty intolerable. Bit like transformer hum.
The large turbines turn slower, and so are much less dangerous to birds. A further benefit of offshore location is that turbines can be more easily placed in areas where birds don't congregate in large numbers.
Look at that difference between Remain and Leave. Remainers probably want us locked down forever. What is wrong with them?
Is that the dumbest post of the day? It comes so easily to you, and I've been trying so hard all day!
I was being provocative. It seems to have worked
But it is an intriguing difference. So many ultra lockdowners on Twitter are also angry Remoaners. Why?
There is an instinct on the part of some people to align themselves with authority/elites, even against their own interests, because being an 'insider who understands these things' is part of the way they like to perceive themselves.
He is really quite convincing that this is a secret US stealth craft, floating in the sky. It explains almost everything
So all the debunkers saying "rock in a loch", "reflection", "hanging ornament", "mountaintop" are wrong, and badly wrong. Equally the UFOlogists convinced it is aliens are also wrong. Or so it seems
But WTF is that US tech?!
An interview with a photographer who claims to have seen all six photos. Very important distinction. You are so gullible at times.
DUH
Do some research. Watch that interview. The only non alien explanation that makes any sense is secret US tech
All the debunking theories have been debunked ("rock in a loch" etc). The idea it is some hugely elaborate 30 year long conspiracy is more far fetched than a US stealth craft
There is an ex-US base Machrihanish on the west coast of Scotland which fits this thesis exactly. The US is known to test new craft/tech on allies like the UK, to see how they perform in "action" - before using them against actual enemies. The planes are Tornadoes not Harriers, which explains the lack of Harriers in the records
This explains all the behaviour of the MoD, the letter to the US defence dept, and so on
That is not a Tornado in the photo you posted [a week or two back, the published shot]. Nose, tail, wings, intake, position of wings, all seem wrong. Had another look just now and that is still my conclusion, a Harrier. This is the first photo I found on google of a Tornado in about the same orientation. Note the huge fin and the flat surface over the intakes and inner wings
So there is something odd in that conclusion you mention.
Edit: the photo I link to is the bog standard Tornado variant, used by all users. There was another RAF (and Saudi) Tornado variant, the F.3. But basaically this just had a longer nose which would look even more different.
It looks wrong and the lighting on the various objects in the photo look very different. Also the focusing.
Almost as if they are bits of different images....
He is really quite convincing that this is a secret US stealth craft, floating in the sky. It explains almost everything
So all the debunkers saying "rock in a loch", "reflection", "hanging ornament", "mountaintop" are wrong, and badly wrong. Equally the UFOlogists convinced it is aliens are also wrong. Or so it seems
But WTF is that US tech?!
An interview with a photographer who claims to have seen all six photos. Very important distinction. You are so gullible at times.
DUH
Do some research. Watch that interview. The only non alien explanation that makes any sense is secret US tech
All the debunking theories have been debunked ("rock in a loch" etc). The idea it is some hugely elaborate 30 year long conspiracy is more far fetched than a US stealth craft
There is an ex-US base Machrihanish on the west coast of Scotland which fits this thesis exactly. The US is known to test new craft/tech on allies like the UK, to see how they perform in "action" - before using them against actual enemies. The planes are Tornadoes not Harriers, which explains the lack of Harriers in the records
This explains all the behaviour of the MoD, the letter to the US defence dept, and so on
That is not a Tornado in the photo you posted [a week or two back, the published shot]. Nose, tail, wings, intake, position of wings, all seem wrong. Had another look just now and that is still my conclusion, a Harrier. This is the first photo I found on google of a Tornado in about the same orientation. Note the huge fin and the flat surface over the intakes and inner wings
So there is something odd in that conclusion you mention.
Edit: the photo I link to is the bog standard Tornado variant, used by all users. There was another RAF (and Saudi) Tornado variant, the F.3. But basaically this just had a longer nose which would look even more different.
It looks wrong and the lighting on the various objects in the photo look very different. Also the focusing.
Almost as if they are bits of different images....
He is really quite convincing that this is a secret US stealth craft, floating in the sky. It explains almost everything
So all the debunkers saying "rock in a loch", "reflection", "hanging ornament", "mountaintop" are wrong, and badly wrong. Equally the UFOlogists convinced it is aliens are also wrong. Or so it seems
But WTF is that US tech?!
An interview with a photographer who claims to have seen all six photos. Very important distinction. You are so gullible at times.
DUH
Do some research. Watch that interview. The only non alien explanation that makes any sense is secret US tech
All the debunking theories have been debunked ("rock in a loch" etc). The idea it is some hugely elaborate 30 year long conspiracy is more far fetched than a US stealth craft
There is an ex-US base Machrihanish on the west coast of Scotland which fits this thesis exactly. The US is known to test new craft/tech on allies like the UK, to see how they perform in "action" - before using them against actual enemies. The planes are Tornadoes not Harriers, which explains the lack of Harriers in the records
This explains all the behaviour of the MoD, the letter to the US defence dept, and so on
That is not a Tornado in the photo you posted [a week or two back, the published shot]. Nose, tail, wings, intake, position of wings, all seem wrong. Had another look just now and that is still my conclusion, a Harrier. This is the first photo I found on google of a Tornado in about the same orientation. Note the huge fin and the flat surface over the intakes and inner wings
So there is something odd in that conclusion you mention.
Edit: the photo I link to is the bog standard Tornado variant, used by all users. There was another RAF (and Saudi) Tornado variant, the F.3. But basaically this just had a longer nose which would look even more different.
Are you sure? The photographer - a plane buff - goes into some details about this and concludes it was probably a Tornado
He also makes the point that you would not send a sluggish Harrier to intercept or accompany a fast craft, you’d send a zippier Tornado
On the other had my VERY amateur eye says Harrier and the MoD thought the same when they analysed the photos. And yet there were no Harriers in the sky that day, according to records
🤷♂️
Hmm. THis (below) is the photo you posted, isn't it? Said to be 1 of 6 prints?
That's what I was looking at and talking about just now and that is a Harrier. Call this image A.
I hadn't seen this new image which we will call B. Hmm. I can't see the new plane very clearly - but ignore that for a moment and look at the photo as a whole. T
A Harrier would bimble along at what, something of the order of 400-500kn if trying moderately, but that is still 400-500 nautical miles an hour. That's about 300 yards a second.
This is low level, so a Tornado can't fly as fast as it can at altitude - Wiki says maximum speed 800kn near sea level.
A Tornado is about 16-19m long, dep. on variant - a Harrier is a bit less, 14m or so. So the planes are at about the same distance from the camera. And they are flying at a speed potentially measured in dozens of plane lengths per second -[edit] 20-ish for the Harrier, 50-ish for the Tornado?
But when one compares pics A and B they have the same relationship between the tail end of the thingy, the front corner of the let's-say-for-now-it-is-a-Harrier fin, and the right top corner of the fencepost - all in a straight line, pretty much. The foliage and fence posts are very similar.
This\ sort of in-a-line relationship is VERY sensitive to change - I use it for checking same vs different typesettings of books printed by the same firm from the same type (which can be unbelievably similar, but the technique works every time when you look at a few sample pages).
I'd say that the time between pics A and B is so small that it's not discernible on the rough online images we have. Therte is no sense of tracking (shame we don't have a background). Yet a Tornado has suddenly appeared in the shot in pic B?
No, you misunderstand
This photo above is a mock-up. The photographer has inserted a blurry photo of a Tornado in roughly the same place as the ACTUAL plane in the Real Photo, to show how he thinks the actual plane could be a Tornado not a Harrier (but blurred by bad reproduction and speed of the airplane)
It's worth watching the entire interview if you have time, to grasp everything he says. I skipped some of the totally boring camera analysis stuff, but he definitely knows his shit, right down to the type of film used
Intriguingly, he says he saw a second plane in one of the negatives. This conforms with the MoD analysis of the photos, they also mention a just-about-visible second plane. But they concluded, of course, that both planes were Harriers
Thanks. Still doesn't look like a Tornado to me. Actually, his attempt only makes me feel more and m ore that we are seeing a Harrier not a Tornado in the original pic.
The jizz* is all wrong for a Tornado, and I had no [edit] prior reason to pick a Harrier rather than a Tornado when looking at the original. .
*sensu twitcher.
Edit: I did consider what other options there might be if it weren't a Harrier, but option 2 was a Hawk (unsurprisingly, as form the same design team).
He is really quite convincing that this is a secret US stealth craft, floating in the sky. It explains almost everything
So all the debunkers saying "rock in a loch", "reflection", "hanging ornament", "mountaintop" are wrong, and badly wrong. Equally the UFOlogists convinced it is aliens are also wrong. Or so it seems
But WTF is that US tech?!
An interview with a photographer who claims to have seen all six photos. Very important distinction. You are so gullible at times.
DUH
Do some research. Watch that interview. The only non alien explanation that makes any sense is secret US tech
All the debunking theories have been debunked ("rock in a loch" etc). The idea it is some hugely elaborate 30 year long conspiracy is more far fetched than a US stealth craft
There is an ex-US base Machrihanish on the west coast of Scotland which fits this thesis exactly. The US is known to test new craft/tech on allies like the UK, to see how they perform in "action" - before using them against actual enemies. The planes are Tornadoes not Harriers, which explains the lack of Harriers in the records
This explains all the behaviour of the MoD, the letter to the US defence dept, and so on
That is not a Tornado in the photo you posted [a week or two back, the published shot]. Nose, tail, wings, intake, position of wings, all seem wrong. Had another look just now and that is still my conclusion, a Harrier. This is the first photo I found on google of a Tornado in about the same orientation. Note the huge fin and the flat surface over the intakes and inner wings
So there is something odd in that conclusion you mention.
Edit: the photo I link to is the bog standard Tornado variant, used by all users. There was another RAF (and Saudi) Tornado variant, the F.3. But basaically this just had a longer nose which would look even more different.
Are you sure? The photographer - a plane buff - goes into some details about this and concludes it was probably a Tornado
He also makes the point that you would not send a sluggish Harrier to intercept or accompany a fast craft, you’d send a zippier Tornado
On the other had my VERY amateur eye says Harrier and the MoD thought the same when they analysed the photos. And yet there were no Harriers in the sky that day, according to records
🤷♂️
Hmm. THis (below) is the photo you posted, isn't it? Said to be 1 of 6 prints?
That's what I was looking at and talking about just now and that is a Harrier. Call this image A.
I hadn't seen this new image which we will call B. Hmm. I can't see the new plane very clearly - but ignore that for a moment and look at the photo as a whole. T
A Harrier would bimble along at what, something of the order of 400-500kn if trying moderately, but that is still 400-500 nautical miles an hour. That's about 300 yards a second.
This is low level, so a Tornado can't fly as fast as it can at altitude - Wiki says maximum speed 800kn near sea level.
A Tornado is about 16-19m long, dep. on variant - a Harrier is a bit less, 14m or so. So the planes are at about the same distance from the camera. And they are flying at a speed potentially measured in dozens of plane lengths per second -[edit] 20-ish for the Harrier, 50-ish for the Tornado?
But when one compares pics A and B they have the same relationship between the tail end of the thingy, the front corner of the let's-say-for-now-it-is-a-Harrier fin, and the right top corner of the fencepost - all in a straight line, pretty much. The foliage and fence posts are very similar.
This\ sort of in-a-line relationship is VERY sensitive to change - I use it for checking same vs different typesettings of books printed by the same firm from the same type (which can be unbelievably similar, but the technique works every time when you look at a few sample pages).
I'd say that the time between pics A and B is so small that it's not discernible on the rough online images we have. Therte is no sense of tracking (shame we don't have a background). Yet a Tornado has suddenly appeared in the shot in pic B?
No, you misunderstand
This photo above is a mock-up. The photographer has inserted a blurry photo of a Tornado in roughly the same place as the ACTUAL plane in the Real Photo, to show how he thinks the actual plane could be a Tornado not a Harrier (but blurred by bad reproduction and speed of the airplane)
It's worth watching the entire interview if you have time, to grasp everything he says. I skipped some of the totally boring camera analysis stuff, but he definitely knows his shit, right down to the type of film used
Intriguingly, he says he saw a second plane in one of the negatives. This conforms with the MoD analysis of the photos, they also mention a just-about-visible second plane. But they concluded, of course, that both planes were Harriers
Thanks. Still doesn't look like a Tornado to me. Actually, his attempt only makes me feel more and m ore that we are seeing a Harrier not a Tornado in the original pic.
The jizz* is all wrong for a Tornado, and I had no [edit] prior reason to pick a Harrier rather than a Tornado when looking at the original. .
*sensu twitcher.
Edit: I did consider what other options there might be if it weren't a Harrier, but option 2 was a Hawk (unsurprisingly, as form the same design team).
Thanks, but still beg to differ. The visual centre of area of a Tornado is a long way to the after end, even if the wings are not swept. The plane in the photo has a clear break between wings and empennage [tail fin and tailplanes].
It's like a decent birdwatcher seeing a photo of a bird in flight; if he reckons it is a gannet hje'll find it odd being told it's a pelican.
And there is a reason to explain the plane as a Tornado not a Harrier (for instance, the aforesaid anomaly concerning records, and the point that Tornadoes would be alert aircraft in Scotland, at Leuchars).
Still not happy. (But we have not seen 5 of the images, have we?)
He is really quite convincing that this is a secret US stealth craft, floating in the sky. It explains almost everything
So all the debunkers saying "rock in a loch", "reflection", "hanging ornament", "mountaintop" are wrong, and badly wrong. Equally the UFOlogists convinced it is aliens are also wrong. Or so it seems
But WTF is that US tech?!
An interview with a photographer who claims to have seen all six photos. Very important distinction. You are so gullible at times.
DUH
Do some research. Watch that interview. The only non alien explanation that makes any sense is secret US tech
All the debunking theories have been debunked ("rock in a loch" etc). The idea it is some hugely elaborate 30 year long conspiracy is more far fetched than a US stealth craft
There is an ex-US base Machrihanish on the west coast of Scotland which fits this thesis exactly. The US is known to test new craft/tech on allies like the UK, to see how they perform in "action" - before using them against actual enemies. The planes are Tornadoes not Harriers, which explains the lack of Harriers in the records
This explains all the behaviour of the MoD, the letter to the US defence dept, and so on
That is not a Tornado in the photo you posted [a week or two back, the published shot]. Nose, tail, wings, intake, position of wings, all seem wrong. Had another look just now and that is still my conclusion, a Harrier. This is the first photo I found on google of a Tornado in about the same orientation. Note the huge fin and the flat surface over the intakes and inner wings
So there is something odd in that conclusion you mention.
Edit: the photo I link to is the bog standard Tornado variant, used by all users. There was another RAF (and Saudi) Tornado variant, the F.3. But basaically this just had a longer nose which would look even more different.
Are you sure? The photographer - a plane buff - goes into some details about this and concludes it was probably a Tornado
He also makes the point that you would not send a sluggish Harrier to intercept or accompany a fast craft, you’d send a zippier Tornado
On the other had my VERY amateur eye says Harrier and the MoD thought the same when they analysed the photos. And yet there were no Harriers in the sky that day, according to records
🤷♂️
Hmm. THis (below) is the photo you posted, isn't it? Said to be 1 of 6 prints?
That's what I was looking at and talking about just now and that is a Harrier. Call this image A.
I hadn't seen this new image which we will call B. Hmm. I can't see the new plane very clearly - but ignore that for a moment and look at the photo as a whole. T
A Harrier would bimble along at what, something of the order of 400-500kn if trying moderately, but that is still 400-500 nautical miles an hour. That's about 300 yards a second.
This is low level, so a Tornado can't fly as fast as it can at altitude - Wiki says maximum speed 800kn near sea level.
A Tornado is about 16-19m long, dep. on variant - a Harrier is a bit less, 14m or so. So the planes are at about the same distance from the camera. And they are flying at a speed potentially measured in dozens of plane lengths per second -[edit] 20-ish for the Harrier, 50-ish for the Tornado?
But when one compares pics A and B they have the same relationship between the tail end of the thingy, the front corner of the let's-say-for-now-it-is-a-Harrier fin, and the right top corner of the fencepost - all in a straight line, pretty much. The foliage and fence posts are very similar.
This\ sort of in-a-line relationship is VERY sensitive to change - I use it for checking same vs different typesettings of books printed by the same firm from the same type (which can be unbelievably similar, but the technique works every time when you look at a few sample pages).
I'd say that the time between pics A and B is so small that it's not discernible on the rough online images we have. Therte is no sense of tracking (shame we don't have a background). Yet a Tornado has suddenly appeared in the shot in pic B?
No, you misunderstand
This photo above is a mock-up. The photographer has inserted a blurry photo of a Tornado in roughly the same place as the ACTUAL plane in the Real Photo, to show how he thinks the actual plane could be a Tornado not a Harrier (but blurred by bad reproduction and speed of the airplane)
It's worth watching the entire interview if you have time, to grasp everything he says. I skipped some of the totally boring camera analysis stuff, but he definitely knows his shit, right down to the type of film used
Intriguingly, he says he saw a second plane in one of the negatives. This conforms with the MoD analysis of the photos, they also mention a just-about-visible second plane. But they concluded, of course, that both planes were Harriers
Thanks. Still doesn't look like a Tornado to me. Actually, his attempt only makes me feel more and m ore that we are seeing a Harrier not a Tornado in the original pic.
The jizz* is all wrong for a Tornado, and I had no [edit] prior reason to pick a Harrier rather than a Tornado when looking at the original. .
*sensu twitcher.
Edit: I did consider what other options there might be if it weren't a Harrier, but option 2 was a Hawk (unsurprisingly, as form the same design team).
He is really quite convincing that this is a secret US stealth craft, floating in the sky. It explains almost everything
So all the debunkers saying "rock in a loch", "reflection", "hanging ornament", "mountaintop" are wrong, and badly wrong. Equally the UFOlogists convinced it is aliens are also wrong. Or so it seems
But WTF is that US tech?!
An interview with a photographer who claims to have seen all six photos. Very important distinction. You are so gullible at times.
DUH
Do some research. Watch that interview. The only non alien explanation that makes any sense is secret US tech
All the debunking theories have been debunked ("rock in a loch" etc). The idea it is some hugely elaborate 30 year long conspiracy is more far fetched than a US stealth craft
There is an ex-US base Machrihanish on the west coast of Scotland which fits this thesis exactly. The US is known to test new craft/tech on allies like the UK, to see how they perform in "action" - before using them against actual enemies. The planes are Tornadoes not Harriers, which explains the lack of Harriers in the records
This explains all the behaviour of the MoD, the letter to the US defence dept, and so on
That is not a Tornado in the photo you posted [a week or two back, the published shot]. Nose, tail, wings, intake, position of wings, all seem wrong. Had another look just now and that is still my conclusion, a Harrier. This is the first photo I found on google of a Tornado in about the same orientation. Note the huge fin and the flat surface over the intakes and inner wings
So there is something odd in that conclusion you mention.
Edit: the photo I link to is the bog standard Tornado variant, used by all users. There was another RAF (and Saudi) Tornado variant, the F.3. But basaically this just had a longer nose which would look even more different.
Are you sure? The photographer - a plane buff - goes into some details about this and concludes it was probably a Tornado
He also makes the point that you would not send a sluggish Harrier to intercept or accompany a fast craft, you’d send a zippier Tornado
On the other had my VERY amateur eye says Harrier and the MoD thought the same when they analysed the photos. And yet there were no Harriers in the sky that day, according to records
🤷♂️
Hmm. THis (below) is the photo you posted, isn't it? Said to be 1 of 6 prints?
That's what I was looking at and talking about just now and that is a Harrier. Call this image A.
I hadn't seen this new image which we will call B. Hmm. I can't see the new plane very clearly - but ignore that for a moment and look at the photo as a whole. T
A Harrier would bimble along at what, something of the order of 400-500kn if trying moderately, but that is still 400-500 nautical miles an hour. That's about 300 yards a second.
This is low level, so a Tornado can't fly as fast as it can at altitude - Wiki says maximum speed 800kn near sea level.
A Tornado is about 16-19m long, dep. on variant - a Harrier is a bit less, 14m or so. So the planes are at about the same distance from the camera. And they are flying at a speed potentially measured in dozens of plane lengths per second -[edit] 20-ish for the Harrier, 50-ish for the Tornado?
But when one compares pics A and B they have the same relationship between the tail end of the thingy, the front corner of the let's-say-for-now-it-is-a-Harrier fin, and the right top corner of the fencepost - all in a straight line, pretty much. The foliage and fence posts are very similar.
This\ sort of in-a-line relationship is VERY sensitive to change - I use it for checking same vs different typesettings of books printed by the same firm from the same type (which can be unbelievably similar, but the technique works every time when you look at a few sample pages).
I'd say that the time between pics A and B is so small that it's not discernible on the rough online images we have. Therte is no sense of tracking (shame we don't have a background). Yet a Tornado has suddenly appeared in the shot in pic B?
No, you misunderstand
This photo above is a mock-up. The photographer has inserted a blurry photo of a Tornado in roughly the same place as the ACTUAL plane in the Real Photo, to show how he thinks the actual plane could be a Tornado not a Harrier (but blurred by bad reproduction and speed of the airplane)
It's worth watching the entire interview if you have time, to grasp everything he says. I skipped some of the totally boring camera analysis stuff, but he definitely knows his shit, right down to the type of film used
Intriguingly, he says he saw a second plane in one of the negatives. This conforms with the MoD analysis of the photos, they also mention a just-about-visible second plane. But they concluded, of course, that both planes were Harriers
Thanks. Still doesn't look like a Tornado to me. Actually, his attempt only makes me feel more and m ore that we are seeing a Harrier not a Tornado in the original pic.
The jizz* is all wrong for a Tornado, and I had no [edit] prior reason to pick a Harrier rather than a Tornado when looking at the original. .
*sensu twitcher.
Edit: I did consider what other options there might be if it weren't a Harrier, but option 2 was a Hawk (unsurprisingly, as form the same design team).
Thanks, but still beg to differ. The visual centre of area of a Tornado is a long way to the after end, even if the wings are not swept. The plane in the photo has a clear break between wings and empennage [tail fin and tailplanes].
It's like a decent birdwatcher seeing a photo of a bird in flight; if he reckons it is a gannet hje'll find it odd being told it's a pelican.
And there is a reason to explain the plane as a Tornado not a Harrier (for instance, the aforesaid anomaly concerning records, and the point that Tornadoes would be alert aircraft in Scotland, at Leuchars).
Still not happy. (But we have not seen 5 of the images, have we?)
Yes the best argument for it being a Tornado are the anomalous records
Like you, the jizz to me says "Harrier". It has that highly distinctive chunkiness
But what about those non-existent records? Very mysterious
“BBC tells its staff to watch out for 170 different forms of 'unconscious bias' which could fuel 'discomfort'... including discrimination based on a colleague's hobbies”
Surely there is genuine unconscious bias: such as the US research that shows that male teachers in co-ed schools are far more likely to call on boys with their hands up over girls. And I suspect that's something that - if brought to ones' attention - is usually quickly corrected.
But that's not about "discomfort".
Of course, this is a Daily Mail article, so I probably shouldn't read too much into it.
Apparently Jennifer Lopez fired dancers based on their star sign. That’s bias.
The head of a trading desk at Barings used to take a whole stack of CVs, divide them in half, and throw one half in the bin.
He is really quite convincing that this is a secret US stealth craft, floating in the sky. It explains almost everything
So all the debunkers saying "rock in a loch", "reflection", "hanging ornament", "mountaintop" are wrong, and badly wrong. Equally the UFOlogists convinced it is aliens are also wrong. Or so it seems
But WTF is that US tech?!
An interview with a photographer who claims to have seen all six photos. Very important distinction. You are so gullible at times.
DUH
Do some research. Watch that interview. The only non alien explanation that makes any sense is secret US tech
All the debunking theories have been debunked ("rock in a loch" etc). The idea it is some hugely elaborate 30 year long conspiracy is more far fetched than a US stealth craft
There is an ex-US base Machrihanish on the west coast of Scotland which fits this thesis exactly. The US is known to test new craft/tech on allies like the UK, to see how they perform in "action" - before using them against actual enemies. The planes are Tornadoes not Harriers, which explains the lack of Harriers in the records
This explains all the behaviour of the MoD, the letter to the US defence dept, and so on
That is not a Tornado in the photo you posted [a week or two back, the published shot]. Nose, tail, wings, intake, position of wings, all seem wrong. Had another look just now and that is still my conclusion, a Harrier. This is the first photo I found on google of a Tornado in about the same orientation. Note the huge fin and the flat surface over the intakes and inner wings
So there is something odd in that conclusion you mention.
Edit: the photo I link to is the bog standard Tornado variant, used by all users. There was another RAF (and Saudi) Tornado variant, the F.3. But basaically this just had a longer nose which would look even more different.
Are you sure? The photographer - a plane buff - goes into some details about this and concludes it was probably a Tornado
He also makes the point that you would not send a sluggish Harrier to intercept or accompany a fast craft, you’d send a zippier Tornado
On the other had my VERY amateur eye says Harrier and the MoD thought the same when they analysed the photos. And yet there were no Harriers in the sky that day, according to records
🤷♂️
Hmm. THis (below) is the photo you posted, isn't it? Said to be 1 of 6 prints?
That's what I was looking at and talking about just now and that is a Harrier. Call this image A.
I hadn't seen this new image which we will call B. Hmm. I can't see the new plane very clearly - but ignore that for a moment and look at the photo as a whole. T
A Harrier would bimble along at what, something of the order of 400-500kn if trying moderately, but that is still 400-500 nautical miles an hour. That's about 300 yards a second.
This is low level, so a Tornado can't fly as fast as it can at altitude - Wiki says maximum speed 800kn near sea level.
A Tornado is about 16-19m long, dep. on variant - a Harrier is a bit less, 14m or so. So the planes are at about the same distance from the camera. And they are flying at a speed potentially measured in dozens of plane lengths per second -[edit] 20-ish for the Harrier, 50-ish for the Tornado?
But when one compares pics A and B they have the same relationship between the tail end of the thingy, the front corner of the let's-say-for-now-it-is-a-Harrier fin, and the right top corner of the fencepost - all in a straight line, pretty much. The foliage and fence posts are very similar.
This\ sort of in-a-line relationship is VERY sensitive to change - I use it for checking same vs different typesettings of books printed by the same firm from the same type (which can be unbelievably similar, but the technique works every time when you look at a few sample pages).
I'd say that the time between pics A and B is so small that it's not discernible on the rough online images we have. Therte is no sense of tracking (shame we don't have a background). Yet a Tornado has suddenly appeared in the shot in pic B?
No, you misunderstand
This photo above is a mock-up. The photographer has inserted a blurry photo of a Tornado in roughly the same place as the ACTUAL plane in the Real Photo, to show how he thinks the actual plane could be a Tornado not a Harrier (but blurred by bad reproduction and speed of the airplane)
It's worth watching the entire interview if you have time, to grasp everything he says. I skipped some of the totally boring camera analysis stuff, but he definitely knows his shit, right down to the type of film used
Intriguingly, he says he saw a second plane in one of the negatives. This conforms with the MoD analysis of the photos, they also mention a just-about-visible second plane. But they concluded, of course, that both planes were Harriers
Thanks. Still doesn't look like a Tornado to me. Actually, his attempt only makes me feel more and m ore that we are seeing a Harrier not a Tornado in the original pic.
The jizz* is all wrong for a Tornado, and I had no [edit] prior reason to pick a Harrier rather than a Tornado when looking at the original. .
*sensu twitcher.
Edit: I did consider what other options there might be if it weren't a Harrier, but option 2 was a Hawk (unsurprisingly, as form the same design team).
He is really quite convincing that this is a secret US stealth craft, floating in the sky. It explains almost everything
So all the debunkers saying "rock in a loch", "reflection", "hanging ornament", "mountaintop" are wrong, and badly wrong. Equally the UFOlogists convinced it is aliens are also wrong. Or so it seems
But WTF is that US tech?!
An interview with a photographer who claims to have seen all six photos. Very important distinction. You are so gullible at times.
DUH
Do some research. Watch that interview. The only non alien explanation that makes any sense is secret US tech
All the debunking theories have been debunked ("rock in a loch" etc). The idea it is some hugely elaborate 30 year long conspiracy is more far fetched than a US stealth craft
There is an ex-US base Machrihanish on the west coast of Scotland which fits this thesis exactly. The US is known to test new craft/tech on allies like the UK, to see how they perform in "action" - before using them against actual enemies. The planes are Tornadoes not Harriers, which explains the lack of Harriers in the records
This explains all the behaviour of the MoD, the letter to the US defence dept, and so on
That is not a Tornado in the photo you posted [a week or two back, the published shot]. Nose, tail, wings, intake, position of wings, all seem wrong. Had another look just now and that is still my conclusion, a Harrier. This is the first photo I found on google of a Tornado in about the same orientation. Note the huge fin and the flat surface over the intakes and inner wings
So there is something odd in that conclusion you mention.
Edit: the photo I link to is the bog standard Tornado variant, used by all users. There was another RAF (and Saudi) Tornado variant, the F.3. But basaically this just had a longer nose which would look even more different.
Are you sure? The photographer - a plane buff - goes into some details about this and concludes it was probably a Tornado
He also makes the point that you would not send a sluggish Harrier to intercept or accompany a fast craft, you’d send a zippier Tornado
On the other had my VERY amateur eye says Harrier and the MoD thought the same when they analysed the photos. And yet there were no Harriers in the sky that day, according to records
🤷♂️
Hmm. THis (below) is the photo you posted, isn't it? Said to be 1 of 6 prints?
That's what I was looking at and talking about just now and that is a Harrier. Call this image A.
I hadn't seen this new image which we will call B. Hmm. I can't see the new plane very clearly - but ignore that for a moment and look at the photo as a whole. T
A Harrier would bimble along at what, something of the order of 400-500kn if trying moderately, but that is still 400-500 nautical miles an hour. That's about 300 yards a second.
This is low level, so a Tornado can't fly as fast as it can at altitude - Wiki says maximum speed 800kn near sea level.
A Tornado is about 16-19m long, dep. on variant - a Harrier is a bit less, 14m or so. So the planes are at about the same distance from the camera. And they are flying at a speed potentially measured in dozens of plane lengths per second -[edit] 20-ish for the Harrier, 50-ish for the Tornado?
But when one compares pics A and B they have the same relationship between the tail end of the thingy, the front corner of the let's-say-for-now-it-is-a-Harrier fin, and the right top corner of the fencepost - all in a straight line, pretty much. The foliage and fence posts are very similar.
This\ sort of in-a-line relationship is VERY sensitive to change - I use it for checking same vs different typesettings of books printed by the same firm from the same type (which can be unbelievably similar, but the technique works every time when you look at a few sample pages).
I'd say that the time between pics A and B is so small that it's not discernible on the rough online images we have. Therte is no sense of tracking (shame we don't have a background). Yet a Tornado has suddenly appeared in the shot in pic B?
No, you misunderstand
This photo above is a mock-up. The photographer has inserted a blurry photo of a Tornado in roughly the same place as the ACTUAL plane in the Real Photo, to show how he thinks the actual plane could be a Tornado not a Harrier (but blurred by bad reproduction and speed of the airplane)
It's worth watching the entire interview if you have time, to grasp everything he says. I skipped some of the totally boring camera analysis stuff, but he definitely knows his shit, right down to the type of film used
Intriguingly, he says he saw a second plane in one of the negatives. This conforms with the MoD analysis of the photos, they also mention a just-about-visible second plane. But they concluded, of course, that both planes were Harriers
Thanks. Still doesn't look like a Tornado to me. Actually, his attempt only makes me feel more and m ore that we are seeing a Harrier not a Tornado in the original pic.
The jizz* is all wrong for a Tornado, and I had no [edit] prior reason to pick a Harrier rather than a Tornado when looking at the original. .
*sensu twitcher.
Edit: I did consider what other options there might be if it weren't a Harrier, but option 2 was a Hawk (unsurprisingly, as form the same design team).
Thanks, but still beg to differ. The visual centre of area of a Tornado is a long way to the after end, even if the wings are not swept. The plane in the photo has a clear break between wings and empennage [tail fin and tailplanes].
It's like a decent birdwatcher seeing a photo of a bird in flight; if he reckons it is a gannet hje'll find it odd being told it's a pelican.
And there is a reason to explain the plane as a Tornado not a Harrier (for instance, the aforesaid anomaly concerning records, and the point that Tornadoes would be alert aircraft in Scotland, at Leuchars).
Still not happy. (But we have not seen 5 of the images, have we?)
Yes the best argument for it being a Tornado are the anomalous records
Like you, the jizz to me says "Harrier". It has that highly distinctive chunkiness
But what about those non-existent records? Very mysterious
It smacks to me of explaining away because they want it to be a thingy. But that is dangerous ... it's like a policeman trying to pin a murder on X who drives a Mini and saying that the witness must have been mistaken because they saw a Beetle driving away from the incident.
Edzit: TBF the chap might be right - yet he has not shown us the evidence from several photos of the same plane at different times and therefore different lighting/viewer orientations. (and he probably cannot do so) Not so much anecdata as data not provided to us.
“BBC tells its staff to watch out for 170 different forms of 'unconscious bias' which could fuel 'discomfort'... including discrimination based on a colleague's hobbies”
Surely there is genuine unconscious bias: such as the US research that shows that male teachers in co-ed schools are far more likely to call on boys with their hands up over girls. And I suspect that's something that - if brought to ones' attention - is usually quickly corrected.
But that's not about "discomfort".
Of course, this is a Daily Mail article, so I probably shouldn't read too much into it.
Apparently Jennifer Lopez fired dancers based on their star sign. That’s bias.
The head of a trading desk at Barings used to take a whole stack of CVs, divide them in half, and throw one half in the bin.
"I hate unlucky people," he'd mutter.
Lucky Nick Leeson. Unlucky Barings.
If the chap had been a little more diligent in his selection process maybe he'd still have his job.
He is really quite convincing that this is a secret US stealth craft, floating in the sky. It explains almost everything
So all the debunkers saying "rock in a loch", "reflection", "hanging ornament", "mountaintop" are wrong, and badly wrong. Equally the UFOlogists convinced it is aliens are also wrong. Or so it seems
But WTF is that US tech?!
An interview with a photographer who claims to have seen all six photos. Very important distinction. You are so gullible at times.
DUH
Do some research. Watch that interview. The only non alien explanation that makes any sense is secret US tech
All the debunking theories have been debunked ("rock in a loch" etc). The idea it is some hugely elaborate 30 year long conspiracy is more far fetched than a US stealth craft
There is an ex-US base Machrihanish on the west coast of Scotland which fits this thesis exactly. The US is known to test new craft/tech on allies like the UK, to see how they perform in "action" - before using them against actual enemies. The planes are Tornadoes not Harriers, which explains the lack of Harriers in the records
This explains all the behaviour of the MoD, the letter to the US defence dept, and so on
That is not a Tornado in the photo you posted [a week or two back, the published shot]. Nose, tail, wings, intake, position of wings, all seem wrong. Had another look just now and that is still my conclusion, a Harrier. This is the first photo I found on google of a Tornado in about the same orientation. Note the huge fin and the flat surface over the intakes and inner wings
So there is something odd in that conclusion you mention.
Edit: the photo I link to is the bog standard Tornado variant, used by all users. There was another RAF (and Saudi) Tornado variant, the F.3. But basaically this just had a longer nose which would look even more different.
Are you sure? The photographer - a plane buff - goes into some details about this and concludes it was probably a Tornado
He also makes the point that you would not send a sluggish Harrier to intercept or accompany a fast craft, you’d send a zippier Tornado
On the other had my VERY amateur eye says Harrier and the MoD thought the same when they analysed the photos. And yet there were no Harriers in the sky that day, according to records
🤷♂️
Hmm. THis (below) is the photo you posted, isn't it? Said to be 1 of 6 prints?
That's what I was looking at and talking about just now and that is a Harrier. Call this image A.
I hadn't seen this new image which we will call B. Hmm. I can't see the new plane very clearly - but ignore that for a moment and look at the photo as a whole. T
A Harrier would bimble along at what, something of the order of 400-500kn if trying moderately, but that is still 400-500 nautical miles an hour. That's about 300 yards a second.
This is low level, so a Tornado can't fly as fast as it can at altitude - Wiki says maximum speed 800kn near sea level.
A Tornado is about 16-19m long, dep. on variant - a Harrier is a bit less, 14m or so. So the planes are at about the same distance from the camera. And they are flying at a speed potentially measured in dozens of plane lengths per second -[edit] 20-ish for the Harrier, 50-ish for the Tornado?
But when one compares pics A and B they have the same relationship between the tail end of the thingy, the front corner of the let's-say-for-now-it-is-a-Harrier fin, and the right top corner of the fencepost - all in a straight line, pretty much. The foliage and fence posts are very similar.
This\ sort of in-a-line relationship is VERY sensitive to change - I use it for checking same vs different typesettings of books printed by the same firm from the same type (which can be unbelievably similar, but the technique works every time when you look at a few sample pages).
I'd say that the time between pics A and B is so small that it's not discernible on the rough online images we have. Therte is no sense of tracking (shame we don't have a background). Yet a Tornado has suddenly appeared in the shot in pic B?
No, you misunderstand
This photo above is a mock-up. The photographer has inserted a blurry photo of a Tornado in roughly the same place as the ACTUAL plane in the Real Photo, to show how he thinks the actual plane could be a Tornado not a Harrier (but blurred by bad reproduction and speed of the airplane)
It's worth watching the entire interview if you have time, to grasp everything he says. I skipped some of the totally boring camera analysis stuff, but he definitely knows his shit, right down to the type of film used
Intriguingly, he says he saw a second plane in one of the negatives. This conforms with the MoD analysis of the photos, they also mention a just-about-visible second plane. But they concluded, of course, that both planes were Harriers
Thanks. Still doesn't look like a Tornado to me. Actually, his attempt only makes me feel more and m ore that we are seeing a Harrier not a Tornado in the original pic.
The jizz* is all wrong for a Tornado, and I had no [edit] prior reason to pick a Harrier rather than a Tornado when looking at the original. .
*sensu twitcher.
Edit: I did consider what other options there might be if it weren't a Harrier, but option 2 was a Hawk (unsurprisingly, as form the same design team).
He is really quite convincing that this is a secret US stealth craft, floating in the sky. It explains almost everything
So all the debunkers saying "rock in a loch", "reflection", "hanging ornament", "mountaintop" are wrong, and badly wrong. Equally the UFOlogists convinced it is aliens are also wrong. Or so it seems
But WTF is that US tech?!
An interview with a photographer who claims to have seen all six photos. Very important distinction. You are so gullible at times.
DUH
Do some research. Watch that interview. The only non alien explanation that makes any sense is secret US tech
All the debunking theories have been debunked ("rock in a loch" etc). The idea it is some hugely elaborate 30 year long conspiracy is more far fetched than a US stealth craft
There is an ex-US base Machrihanish on the west coast of Scotland which fits this thesis exactly. The US is known to test new craft/tech on allies like the UK, to see how they perform in "action" - before using them against actual enemies. The planes are Tornadoes not Harriers, which explains the lack of Harriers in the records
This explains all the behaviour of the MoD, the letter to the US defence dept, and so on
That is not a Tornado in the photo you posted [a week or two back, the published shot]. Nose, tail, wings, intake, position of wings, all seem wrong. Had another look just now and that is still my conclusion, a Harrier. This is the first photo I found on google of a Tornado in about the same orientation. Note the huge fin and the flat surface over the intakes and inner wings
So there is something odd in that conclusion you mention.
Edit: the photo I link to is the bog standard Tornado variant, used by all users. There was another RAF (and Saudi) Tornado variant, the F.3. But basaically this just had a longer nose which would look even more different.
Are you sure? The photographer - a plane buff - goes into some details about this and concludes it was probably a Tornado
He also makes the point that you would not send a sluggish Harrier to intercept or accompany a fast craft, you’d send a zippier Tornado
On the other had my VERY amateur eye says Harrier and the MoD thought the same when they analysed the photos. And yet there were no Harriers in the sky that day, according to records
🤷♂️
Hmm. THis (below) is the photo you posted, isn't it? Said to be 1 of 6 prints?
That's what I was looking at and talking about just now and that is a Harrier. Call this image A.
I hadn't seen this new image which we will call B. Hmm. I can't see the new plane very clearly - but ignore that for a moment and look at the photo as a whole. T
A Harrier would bimble along at what, something of the order of 400-500kn if trying moderately, but that is still 400-500 nautical miles an hour. That's about 300 yards a second.
This is low level, so a Tornado can't fly as fast as it can at altitude - Wiki says maximum speed 800kn near sea level.
A Tornado is about 16-19m long, dep. on variant - a Harrier is a bit less, 14m or so. So the planes are at about the same distance from the camera. And they are flying at a speed potentially measured in dozens of plane lengths per second -[edit] 20-ish for the Harrier, 50-ish for the Tornado?
But when one compares pics A and B they have the same relationship between the tail end of the thingy, the front corner of the let's-say-for-now-it-is-a-Harrier fin, and the right top corner of the fencepost - all in a straight line, pretty much. The foliage and fence posts are very similar.
This\ sort of in-a-line relationship is VERY sensitive to change - I use it for checking same vs different typesettings of books printed by the same firm from the same type (which can be unbelievably similar, but the technique works every time when you look at a few sample pages).
I'd say that the time between pics A and B is so small that it's not discernible on the rough online images we have. Therte is no sense of tracking (shame we don't have a background). Yet a Tornado has suddenly appeared in the shot in pic B?
No, you misunderstand
This photo above is a mock-up. The photographer has inserted a blurry photo of a Tornado in roughly the same place as the ACTUAL plane in the Real Photo, to show how he thinks the actual plane could be a Tornado not a Harrier (but blurred by bad reproduction and speed of the airplane)
It's worth watching the entire interview if you have time, to grasp everything he says. I skipped some of the totally boring camera analysis stuff, but he definitely knows his shit, right down to the type of film used
Intriguingly, he says he saw a second plane in one of the negatives. This conforms with the MoD analysis of the photos, they also mention a just-about-visible second plane. But they concluded, of course, that both planes were Harriers
Thanks. Still doesn't look like a Tornado to me. Actually, his attempt only makes me feel more and m ore that we are seeing a Harrier not a Tornado in the original pic.
The jizz* is all wrong for a Tornado, and I had no [edit] prior reason to pick a Harrier rather than a Tornado when looking at the original. .
*sensu twitcher.
Edit: I did consider what other options there might be if it weren't a Harrier, but option 2 was a Hawk (unsurprisingly, as form the same design team).
Thanks, but still beg to differ. The visual centre of area of a Tornado is a long way to the after end, even if the wings are not swept. The plane in the photo has a clear break between wings and empennage [tail fin and tailplanes].
It's like a decent birdwatcher seeing a photo of a bird in flight; if he reckons it is a gannet hje'll find it odd being told it's a pelican.
And there is a reason to explain the plane as a Tornado not a Harrier (for instance, the aforesaid anomaly concerning records, and the point that Tornadoes would be alert aircraft in Scotland, at Leuchars).
Still not happy. (But we have not seen 5 of the images, have we?)
Yes the best argument for it being a Tornado are the anomalous records
Like you, the jizz to me says "Harrier". It has that highly distinctive chunkiness
But what about those non-existent records? Very mysterious
It smacks to me of explaining away because they want it to be a thingy. But that is dangerous ... it's like a policeman trying to pin a murder on X who drives a Mini and saying that the witness must have been mistaken because they saw a Beetle driving away from the incident.
I don't quite understand you. Are you saying the MoD made a big kerfuffle over nothing? Why?
It says in the article.. none. Grounded because of legal challenges. So it makes sense the numbers are up.
The numbers are up because, since Brexit, the French no longer have to cooperate with us.
Well that is contradictory with statements from both sides. They say that they intend to strengthen cooperation on this issue.
Is Macron a friend or foe?
Asking for a lady friend.
I'd suggest that the reason that the number of refugees has surged is much more complex than simply Brexit. It's not as if there were tens of thousands of people being stopped from crossing by the French each year in the years prior to Brexit.
He is really quite convincing that this is a secret US stealth craft, floating in the sky. It explains almost everything
So all the debunkers saying "rock in a loch", "reflection", "hanging ornament", "mountaintop" are wrong, and badly wrong. Equally the UFOlogists convinced it is aliens are also wrong. Or so it seems
But WTF is that US tech?!
An interview with a photographer who claims to have seen all six photos. Very important distinction. You are so gullible at times.
DUH
Do some research. Watch that interview. The only non alien explanation that makes any sense is secret US tech
All the debunking theories have been debunked ("rock in a loch" etc). The idea it is some hugely elaborate 30 year long conspiracy is more far fetched than a US stealth craft
There is an ex-US base Machrihanish on the west coast of Scotland which fits this thesis exactly. The US is known to test new craft/tech on allies like the UK, to see how they perform in "action" - before using them against actual enemies. The planes are Tornadoes not Harriers, which explains the lack of Harriers in the records
This explains all the behaviour of the MoD, the letter to the US defence dept, and so on
That is not a Tornado in the photo you posted [a week or two back, the published shot]. Nose, tail, wings, intake, position of wings, all seem wrong. Had another look just now and that is still my conclusion, a Harrier. This is the first photo I found on google of a Tornado in about the same orientation. Note the huge fin and the flat surface over the intakes and inner wings
So there is something odd in that conclusion you mention.
Edit: the photo I link to is the bog standard Tornado variant, used by all users. There was another RAF (and Saudi) Tornado variant, the F.3. But basaically this just had a longer nose which would look even more different.
Are you sure? The photographer - a plane buff - goes into some details about this and concludes it was probably a Tornado
He also makes the point that you would not send a sluggish Harrier to intercept or accompany a fast craft, you’d send a zippier Tornado
On the other had my VERY amateur eye says Harrier and the MoD thought the same when they analysed the photos. And yet there were no Harriers in the sky that day, according to records
🤷♂️
Hmm. THis (below) is the photo you posted, isn't it? Said to be 1 of 6 prints?
That's what I was looking at and talking about just now and that is a Harrier. Call this image A.
I hadn't seen this new image which we will call B. Hmm. I can't see the new plane very clearly - but ignore that for a moment and look at the photo as a whole. T
A Harrier would bimble along at what, something of the order of 400-500kn if trying moderately, but that is still 400-500 nautical miles an hour. That's about 300 yards a second.
This is low level, so a Tornado can't fly as fast as it can at altitude - Wiki says maximum speed 800kn near sea level.
A Tornado is about 16-19m long, dep. on variant - a Harrier is a bit less, 14m or so. So the planes are at about the same distance from the camera. And they are flying at a speed potentially measured in dozens of plane lengths per second -[edit] 20-ish for the Harrier, 50-ish for the Tornado?
But when one compares pics A and B they have the same relationship between the tail end of the thingy, the front corner of the let's-say-for-now-it-is-a-Harrier fin, and the right top corner of the fencepost - all in a straight line, pretty much. The foliage and fence posts are very similar.
This\ sort of in-a-line relationship is VERY sensitive to change - I use it for checking same vs different typesettings of books printed by the same firm from the same type (which can be unbelievably similar, but the technique works every time when you look at a few sample pages).
I'd say that the time between pics A and B is so small that it's not discernible on the rough online images we have. Therte is no sense of tracking (shame we don't have a background). Yet a Tornado has suddenly appeared in the shot in pic B?
No, you misunderstand
This photo above is a mock-up. The photographer has inserted a blurry photo of a Tornado in roughly the same place as the ACTUAL plane in the Real Photo, to show how he thinks the actual plane could be a Tornado not a Harrier (but blurred by bad reproduction and speed of the airplane)
It's worth watching the entire interview if you have time, to grasp everything he says. I skipped some of the totally boring camera analysis stuff, but he definitely knows his shit, right down to the type of film used
Intriguingly, he says he saw a second plane in one of the negatives. This conforms with the MoD analysis of the photos, they also mention a just-about-visible second plane. But they concluded, of course, that both planes were Harriers
Thanks. Still doesn't look like a Tornado to me. Actually, his attempt only makes me feel more and m ore that we are seeing a Harrier not a Tornado in the original pic.
The jizz* is all wrong for a Tornado, and I had no [edit] prior reason to pick a Harrier rather than a Tornado when looking at the original. .
*sensu twitcher.
Edit: I did consider what other options there might be if it weren't a Harrier, but option 2 was a Hawk (unsurprisingly, as form the same design team).
He is really quite convincing that this is a secret US stealth craft, floating in the sky. It explains almost everything
So all the debunkers saying "rock in a loch", "reflection", "hanging ornament", "mountaintop" are wrong, and badly wrong. Equally the UFOlogists convinced it is aliens are also wrong. Or so it seems
But WTF is that US tech?!
An interview with a photographer who claims to have seen all six photos. Very important distinction. You are so gullible at times.
DUH
Do some research. Watch that interview. The only non alien explanation that makes any sense is secret US tech
All the debunking theories have been debunked ("rock in a loch" etc). The idea it is some hugely elaborate 30 year long conspiracy is more far fetched than a US stealth craft
There is an ex-US base Machrihanish on the west coast of Scotland which fits this thesis exactly. The US is known to test new craft/tech on allies like the UK, to see how they perform in "action" - before using them against actual enemies. The planes are Tornadoes not Harriers, which explains the lack of Harriers in the records
This explains all the behaviour of the MoD, the letter to the US defence dept, and so on
That is not a Tornado in the photo you posted [a week or two back, the published shot]. Nose, tail, wings, intake, position of wings, all seem wrong. Had another look just now and that is still my conclusion, a Harrier. This is the first photo I found on google of a Tornado in about the same orientation. Note the huge fin and the flat surface over the intakes and inner wings
So there is something odd in that conclusion you mention.
Edit: the photo I link to is the bog standard Tornado variant, used by all users. There was another RAF (and Saudi) Tornado variant, the F.3. But basaically this just had a longer nose which would look even more different.
Are you sure? The photographer - a plane buff - goes into some details about this and concludes it was probably a Tornado
He also makes the point that you would not send a sluggish Harrier to intercept or accompany a fast craft, you’d send a zippier Tornado
On the other had my VERY amateur eye says Harrier and the MoD thought the same when they analysed the photos. And yet there were no Harriers in the sky that day, according to records
🤷♂️
Hmm. THis (below) is the photo you posted, isn't it? Said to be 1 of 6 prints?
That's what I was looking at and talking about just now and that is a Harrier. Call this image A.
I hadn't seen this new image which we will call B. Hmm. I can't see the new plane very clearly - but ignore that for a moment and look at the photo as a whole. T
A Harrier would bimble along at what, something of the order of 400-500kn if trying moderately, but that is still 400-500 nautical miles an hour. That's about 300 yards a second.
This is low level, so a Tornado can't fly as fast as it can at altitude - Wiki says maximum speed 800kn near sea level.
A Tornado is about 16-19m long, dep. on variant - a Harrier is a bit less, 14m or so. So the planes are at about the same distance from the camera. And they are flying at a speed potentially measured in dozens of plane lengths per second -[edit] 20-ish for the Harrier, 50-ish for the Tornado?
But when one compares pics A and B they have the same relationship between the tail end of the thingy, the front corner of the let's-say-for-now-it-is-a-Harrier fin, and the right top corner of the fencepost - all in a straight line, pretty much. The foliage and fence posts are very similar.
This\ sort of in-a-line relationship is VERY sensitive to change - I use it for checking same vs different typesettings of books printed by the same firm from the same type (which can be unbelievably similar, but the technique works every time when you look at a few sample pages).
I'd say that the time between pics A and B is so small that it's not discernible on the rough online images we have. Therte is no sense of tracking (shame we don't have a background). Yet a Tornado has suddenly appeared in the shot in pic B?
No, you misunderstand
This photo above is a mock-up. The photographer has inserted a blurry photo of a Tornado in roughly the same place as the ACTUAL plane in the Real Photo, to show how he thinks the actual plane could be a Tornado not a Harrier (but blurred by bad reproduction and speed of the airplane)
It's worth watching the entire interview if you have time, to grasp everything he says. I skipped some of the totally boring camera analysis stuff, but he definitely knows his shit, right down to the type of film used
Intriguingly, he says he saw a second plane in one of the negatives. This conforms with the MoD analysis of the photos, they also mention a just-about-visible second plane. But they concluded, of course, that both planes were Harriers
Thanks. Still doesn't look like a Tornado to me. Actually, his attempt only makes me feel more and m ore that we are seeing a Harrier not a Tornado in the original pic.
The jizz* is all wrong for a Tornado, and I had no [edit] prior reason to pick a Harrier rather than a Tornado when looking at the original. .
*sensu twitcher.
Edit: I did consider what other options there might be if it weren't a Harrier, but option 2 was a Hawk (unsurprisingly, as form the same design team).
Thanks, but still beg to differ. The visual centre of area of a Tornado is a long way to the after end, even if the wings are not swept. The plane in the photo has a clear break between wings and empennage [tail fin and tailplanes].
It's like a decent birdwatcher seeing a photo of a bird in flight; if he reckons it is a gannet hje'll find it odd being told it's a pelican.
And there is a reason to explain the plane as a Tornado not a Harrier (for instance, the aforesaid anomaly concerning records, and the point that Tornadoes would be alert aircraft in Scotland, at Leuchars).
Still not happy. (But we have not seen 5 of the images, have we?)
Yes the best argument for it being a Tornado are the anomalous records
Like you, the jizz to me says "Harrier". It has that highly distinctive chunkiness
But what about those non-existent records? Very mysterious
It smacks to me of explaining away because they want it to be a thingy. But that is dangerous ... it's like a policeman trying to pin a murder on X who drives a Mini and saying that the witness must have been mistaken because they saw a Beetle driving away from the incident.
I don't quite understand you. Are you saying the MoD made a big kerfuffle over nothing? Why?
No, just thtat the logic of "there were no Harriers flying on the purported day, therefore the plane must be something else even if it looks like one" is dodgy, and therefore anything that looks as if it follows that same logical chain is seemingly unsound. We are not given the evidence to assess that chain, are we?
He is really quite convincing that this is a secret US stealth craft, floating in the sky. It explains almost everything
So all the debunkers saying "rock in a loch", "reflection", "hanging ornament", "mountaintop" are wrong, and badly wrong. Equally the UFOlogists convinced it is aliens are also wrong. Or so it seems
But WTF is that US tech?!
An interview with a photographer who claims to have seen all six photos. Very important distinction. You are so gullible at times.
DUH
Do some research. Watch that interview. The only non alien explanation that makes any sense is secret US tech
All the debunking theories have been debunked ("rock in a loch" etc). The idea it is some hugely elaborate 30 year long conspiracy is more far fetched than a US stealth craft
There is an ex-US base Machrihanish on the west coast of Scotland which fits this thesis exactly. The US is known to test new craft/tech on allies like the UK, to see how they perform in "action" - before using them against actual enemies. The planes are Tornadoes not Harriers, which explains the lack of Harriers in the records
This explains all the behaviour of the MoD, the letter to the US defence dept, and so on
That is not a Tornado in the photo you posted [a week or two back, the published shot]. Nose, tail, wings, intake, position of wings, all seem wrong. Had another look just now and that is still my conclusion, a Harrier. This is the first photo I found on google of a Tornado in about the same orientation. Note the huge fin and the flat surface over the intakes and inner wings
So there is something odd in that conclusion you mention.
Edit: the photo I link to is the bog standard Tornado variant, used by all users. There was another RAF (and Saudi) Tornado variant, the F.3. But basaically this just had a longer nose which would look even more different.
Are you sure? The photographer - a plane buff - goes into some details about this and concludes it was probably a Tornado
He also makes the point that you would not send a sluggish Harrier to intercept or accompany a fast craft, you’d send a zippier Tornado
On the other had my VERY amateur eye says Harrier and the MoD thought the same when they analysed the photos. And yet there were no Harriers in the sky that day, according to records
🤷♂️
Hmm. THis (below) is the photo you posted, isn't it? Said to be 1 of 6 prints?
That's what I was looking at and talking about just now and that is a Harrier. Call this image A.
I hadn't seen this new image which we will call B. Hmm. I can't see the new plane very clearly - but ignore that for a moment and look at the photo as a whole. T
A Harrier would bimble along at what, something of the order of 400-500kn if trying moderately, but that is still 400-500 nautical miles an hour. That's about 300 yards a second.
This is low level, so a Tornado can't fly as fast as it can at altitude - Wiki says maximum speed 800kn near sea level.
A Tornado is about 16-19m long, dep. on variant - a Harrier is a bit less, 14m or so. So the planes are at about the same distance from the camera. And they are flying at a speed potentially measured in dozens of plane lengths per second -[edit] 20-ish for the Harrier, 50-ish for the Tornado?
But when one compares pics A and B they have the same relationship between the tail end of the thingy, the front corner of the let's-say-for-now-it-is-a-Harrier fin, and the right top corner of the fencepost - all in a straight line, pretty much. The foliage and fence posts are very similar.
This\ sort of in-a-line relationship is VERY sensitive to change - I use it for checking same vs different typesettings of books printed by the same firm from the same type (which can be unbelievably similar, but the technique works every time when you look at a few sample pages).
I'd say that the time between pics A and B is so small that it's not discernible on the rough online images we have. Therte is no sense of tracking (shame we don't have a background). Yet a Tornado has suddenly appeared in the shot in pic B?
No, you misunderstand
This photo above is a mock-up. The photographer has inserted a blurry photo of a Tornado in roughly the same place as the ACTUAL plane in the Real Photo, to show how he thinks the actual plane could be a Tornado not a Harrier (but blurred by bad reproduction and speed of the airplane)
It's worth watching the entire interview if you have time, to grasp everything he says. I skipped some of the totally boring camera analysis stuff, but he definitely knows his shit, right down to the type of film used
Intriguingly, he says he saw a second plane in one of the negatives. This conforms with the MoD analysis of the photos, they also mention a just-about-visible second plane. But they concluded, of course, that both planes were Harriers
Thanks. Still doesn't look like a Tornado to me. Actually, his attempt only makes me feel more and m ore that we are seeing a Harrier not a Tornado in the original pic.
The jizz* is all wrong for a Tornado, and I had no [edit] prior reason to pick a Harrier rather than a Tornado when looking at the original. .
*sensu twitcher.
Edit: I did consider what other options there might be if it weren't a Harrier, but option 2 was a Hawk (unsurprisingly, as form the same design team).
He is really quite convincing that this is a secret US stealth craft, floating in the sky. It explains almost everything
So all the debunkers saying "rock in a loch", "reflection", "hanging ornament", "mountaintop" are wrong, and badly wrong. Equally the UFOlogists convinced it is aliens are also wrong. Or so it seems
But WTF is that US tech?!
An interview with a photographer who claims to have seen all six photos. Very important distinction. You are so gullible at times.
DUH
Do some research. Watch that interview. The only non alien explanation that makes any sense is secret US tech
All the debunking theories have been debunked ("rock in a loch" etc). The idea it is some hugely elaborate 30 year long conspiracy is more far fetched than a US stealth craft
There is an ex-US base Machrihanish on the west coast of Scotland which fits this thesis exactly. The US is known to test new craft/tech on allies like the UK, to see how they perform in "action" - before using them against actual enemies. The planes are Tornadoes not Harriers, which explains the lack of Harriers in the records
This explains all the behaviour of the MoD, the letter to the US defence dept, and so on
That is not a Tornado in the photo you posted [a week or two back, the published shot]. Nose, tail, wings, intake, position of wings, all seem wrong. Had another look just now and that is still my conclusion, a Harrier. This is the first photo I found on google of a Tornado in about the same orientation. Note the huge fin and the flat surface over the intakes and inner wings
So there is something odd in that conclusion you mention.
Edit: the photo I link to is the bog standard Tornado variant, used by all users. There was another RAF (and Saudi) Tornado variant, the F.3. But basaically this just had a longer nose which would look even more different.
Are you sure? The photographer - a plane buff - goes into some details about this and concludes it was probably a Tornado
He also makes the point that you would not send a sluggish Harrier to intercept or accompany a fast craft, you’d send a zippier Tornado
On the other had my VERY amateur eye says Harrier and the MoD thought the same when they analysed the photos. And yet there were no Harriers in the sky that day, according to records
🤷♂️
Hmm. THis (below) is the photo you posted, isn't it? Said to be 1 of 6 prints?
That's what I was looking at and talking about just now and that is a Harrier. Call this image A.
I hadn't seen this new image which we will call B. Hmm. I can't see the new plane very clearly - but ignore that for a moment and look at the photo as a whole. T
A Harrier would bimble along at what, something of the order of 400-500kn if trying moderately, but that is still 400-500 nautical miles an hour. That's about 300 yards a second.
This is low level, so a Tornado can't fly as fast as it can at altitude - Wiki says maximum speed 800kn near sea level.
A Tornado is about 16-19m long, dep. on variant - a Harrier is a bit less, 14m or so. So the planes are at about the same distance from the camera. And they are flying at a speed potentially measured in dozens of plane lengths per second -[edit] 20-ish for the Harrier, 50-ish for the Tornado?
But when one compares pics A and B they have the same relationship between the tail end of the thingy, the front corner of the let's-say-for-now-it-is-a-Harrier fin, and the right top corner of the fencepost - all in a straight line, pretty much. The foliage and fence posts are very similar.
This\ sort of in-a-line relationship is VERY sensitive to change - I use it for checking same vs different typesettings of books printed by the same firm from the same type (which can be unbelievably similar, but the technique works every time when you look at a few sample pages).
I'd say that the time between pics A and B is so small that it's not discernible on the rough online images we have. Therte is no sense of tracking (shame we don't have a background). Yet a Tornado has suddenly appeared in the shot in pic B?
No, you misunderstand
This photo above is a mock-up. The photographer has inserted a blurry photo of a Tornado in roughly the same place as the ACTUAL plane in the Real Photo, to show how he thinks the actual plane could be a Tornado not a Harrier (but blurred by bad reproduction and speed of the airplane)
It's worth watching the entire interview if you have time, to grasp everything he says. I skipped some of the totally boring camera analysis stuff, but he definitely knows his shit, right down to the type of film used
Intriguingly, he says he saw a second plane in one of the negatives. This conforms with the MoD analysis of the photos, they also mention a just-about-visible second plane. But they concluded, of course, that both planes were Harriers
Thanks. Still doesn't look like a Tornado to me. Actually, his attempt only makes me feel more and m ore that we are seeing a Harrier not a Tornado in the original pic.
The jizz* is all wrong for a Tornado, and I had no [edit] prior reason to pick a Harrier rather than a Tornado when looking at the original. .
*sensu twitcher.
Edit: I did consider what other options there might be if it weren't a Harrier, but option 2 was a Hawk (unsurprisingly, as form the same design team).
Thanks, but still beg to differ. The visual centre of area of a Tornado is a long way to the after end, even if the wings are not swept. The plane in the photo has a clear break between wings and empennage [tail fin and tailplanes].
It's like a decent birdwatcher seeing a photo of a bird in flight; if he reckons it is a gannet hje'll find it odd being told it's a pelican.
And there is a reason to explain the plane as a Tornado not a Harrier (for instance, the aforesaid anomaly concerning records, and the point that Tornadoes would be alert aircraft in Scotland, at Leuchars).
Still not happy. (But we have not seen 5 of the images, have we?)
Yes the best argument for it being a Tornado are the anomalous records
Like you, the jizz to me says "Harrier". It has that highly distinctive chunkiness
But what about those non-existent records? Very mysterious
It smacks to me of explaining away because they want it to be a thingy. But that is dangerous ... it's like a policeman trying to pin a murder on X who drives a Mini and saying that the witness must have been mistaken because they saw a Beetle driving away from the incident.
I don't quite understand you. Are you saying the MoD made a big kerfuffle over nothing? Why?
No, just thtat the logic of "there were no Harriers flying on the purported day, therefore the plane must be something else even if it looks like one" is dodgy, and therefore anything that looks as if it follows that same logical chain is seemingly unsound. We are not given the evidence to assess that chain, are we?
Ah yes. I tend to agree, BUT this photographer has thought about it a lot more than me, and he is a plane buff, too, so I'm not dismissing him
Have you watched any of the video? I watched most of it (yes, 2 and a half hours)
I am 98.4% sure he is telling the truth. No one can lie that well for that long. 30 years ago he saw 6 negatives as he describes, of this same incident, and he is honestly convinced they showed a man made stealth aircraft
So the negatives very like exist, or existed. Where are they now? Surely someone made copies?
It says in the article.. none. Grounded because of legal challenges. So it makes sense the numbers are up.
The numbers are up because, since Brexit, the French no longer have to cooperate with us.
Well that is contradictory with statements from both sides. They say that they intend to strengthen cooperation on this issue.
Yes, if we pay them nearly £100m to do it...
How's that any different from cooperation before Brexit, which always seemed to require money?
The immigrants at Calais are hated by the locals. Hated. Them going away is exactly what they want.
Why should a French President lose votes, for his party, just because you gave him some small change and just because he signed some agreement?
Which is why it wasn't solved before Brexit, as is unlikely to be solved this way after Brexit. The real solution will be preventing the need for people to make that journey to France in the first place.
Clearly something happened re Channel crossings as they seem to have rocketed since early 2021. Which just so happens to be when the transition period ended. It’s not all to do with Brexit but co-operation has fallen and the French might have not be so amenable to helping no 10 after the amount of anti EU bile which emanated from there .
It says in the article.. none. Grounded because of legal challenges. So it makes sense the numbers are up.
The numbers are up because, since Brexit, the French no longer have to cooperate with us.
Well that is contradictory with statements from both sides. They say that they intend to strengthen cooperation on this issue.
Is Macron a friend or foe?
Asking for a lady friend.
I'd suggest that the reason that the number of refugees has surged is much more complex than simply Brexit. It's not as if there were tens of thousands of people being stopped from crossing by the French each year in the years prior to Brexit.
Quite. Inputs into the EU are massively up this year
Clearly something happened re Channel crossings as they seem to have rocketed since early 2021. Which just so happens to be when the transition period ended. It’s not all to do with Brexit but co-operation has fallen and the French might have not be so amenable to helping no 10 after the amount of anti EU bile which emanated from there .
Yet both sides have continued to say their goal is to stop crossing like this entirely, even after the transition period ended. There's clearly a far greater number of refugees in recent months, which has nothing to do with Brexit.
It says in the article.. none. Grounded because of legal challenges. So it makes sense the numbers are up.
The numbers are up because, since Brexit, the French no longer have to cooperate with us.
Well that is contradictory with statements from both sides. They say that they intend to strengthen cooperation on this issue.
Is Macron a friend or foe?
Asking for a lady friend.
I'd suggest that the reason that the number of refugees has surged is much more complex than simply Brexit. It's not as if there were tens of thousands of people being stopped from crossing by the French each year in the years prior to Brexit.
Quite. Inputs into the EU are massively up this year
Thus replacing viciousness with stupidity? Go for it....
Truss also taking a risk having Patel, Sunak, Dowden, Raab, Barclay, Hunt, Shapps, Eustice, Greg Clark etc on the backbenches brooding with resentment against her rather than in her Cabinet. It looks like Truss' Cabinet will instead be even more dominated by her loyalists and supporters than Boris' was
It says in the article.. none. Grounded because of legal challenges. So it makes sense the numbers are up.
The numbers are up because, since Brexit, the French no longer have to cooperate with us.
Well that is contradictory with statements from both sides. They say that they intend to strengthen cooperation on this issue.
Is Macron a friend or foe?
Asking for a lady friend.
I'd suggest that the reason that the number of refugees has surged is much more complex than simply Brexit. It's not as if there were tens of thousands of people being stopped from crossing by the French each year in the years prior to Brexit.
Quite. Inputs into the EU are massively up this year
Thus replacing viciousness with stupidity? Go for it....
Truss also taking a risk having Patel, Sunak, Dowden, Raab, Barclay, Hunt, Shapps, Eustice, Greg Clark etc on the backbenches brooding with resentment against her rather than in her Cabinet. It looks like Truss' Cabinet will instead be even more dominated by her loyalists and supporters than Boris' was
Each and everyone of those mentioned apart from Hunt are not fit for cabinet
Thus replacing viciousness with stupidity? Go for it....
Truss also taking a risk having Patel, Sunak, Dowden, Raab, Barclay, Hunt, Shapps, Eustice, Greg Clark etc on the backbenches brooding with resentment against her rather than in her Cabinet. It looks like Truss' Cabinet will instead be even more dominated by her loyalists and supporters than Boris' was
Each and everyone of those mentioned apart from Hunt are not fit for cabinet
An even bigger risk is Johnson on the back benches. He needs a big 4 Secretary of State role to keep him more-or-less inline. One with a big County House freebie would work for him.
Thus replacing viciousness with stupidity? Go for it....
Truss also taking a risk having Patel, Sunak, Dowden, Raab, Barclay, Hunt, Shapps, Eustice, Greg Clark etc on the backbenches brooding with resentment against her rather than in her Cabinet. It looks like Truss' Cabinet will instead be even more dominated by her loyalists and supporters than Boris' was
Each and everyone of those mentioned apart from Hunt are not fit for cabinet
Be fair, Eustice has done OK, and not that long ago you thought highly of Sunak.
The others, perhaps you are a little generous in saying they're unfit for cabinet not unfit for a parish council.
Thus replacing viciousness with stupidity? Go for it....
Truss also taking a risk having Patel, Sunak, Dowden, Raab, Barclay, Hunt, Shapps, Eustice, Greg Clark etc on the backbenches brooding with resentment against her rather than in her Cabinet. It looks like Truss' Cabinet will instead be even more dominated by her loyalists and supporters than Boris' was
Each and everyone of those mentioned apart from Hunt are not fit for cabinet
So apparently even Sunak and Greg Clark and George Eustice are no longer fit for your preferred Cabinet? Rees Mogg, Braverman, Badenoch, Redwood, Frost, Kwarteng, Zahawi, IDS, Dorries though amongst those tipped for Truss' Cabinet
Thus replacing viciousness with stupidity? Go for it....
Truss also taking a risk having Patel, Sunak, Dowden, Raab, Barclay, Hunt, Shapps, Eustice, Greg Clark etc on the backbenches brooding with resentment against her rather than in her Cabinet. It looks like Truss' Cabinet will instead be even more dominated by her loyalists and supporters than Boris' was
And with Rees Mogg, Duncan Smith and Redwood all in the Cabinet... the outlook is um... interesting.
Thus replacing viciousness with stupidity? Go for it....
Truss also taking a risk having Patel, Sunak, Dowden, Raab, Barclay, Hunt, Shapps, Eustice, Greg Clark etc on the backbenches brooding with resentment against her rather than in her Cabinet. It looks like Truss' Cabinet will instead be even more dominated by her loyalists and supporters than Boris' was
Each and everyone of those mentioned apart from Hunt are not fit for cabinet
So apparently even Sunak and Greg Clark and George Eustice are no longer fit for your preferred Cabinet? Rees Mogg, Braverman, Badenoch, Redwood, Frost, Kwarteng, Zahawi, IDS, Dorries though amongst those tipped for Truss' Cabinet
Truss also taking a risk having Patel, Sunak, Dowden, Raab, Barclay, Hunt, Shapps, Eustice, Greg Clark etc on the backbenches brooding with resentment against her rather than in her Cabinet. It looks like Truss' Cabinet will instead be even more dominated by her loyalists and supporters than Boris' was
Like any other winner, she has favours which will be called in and allies to be rewarded.
Unlike after winning a General Election when the victorious Party leader can more or less do what he or she wants, winning an internal election is different in that the defeated candidate and his/her supporters owe you no favours and only Party loyalty and discipline.
Truss (assuming it is she) will presumably need to stamp her authority on the party via the Whips' Office and the appointment of an ultra-loyalist (and potential scapegoat) as Party Chair. As the membership dominate the Conference she has little to worry about there but the Commons will be very different.
Thus replacing viciousness with stupidity? Go for it....
Truss also taking a risk having Patel, Sunak, Dowden, Raab, Barclay, Hunt, Shapps, Eustice, Greg Clark etc on the backbenches brooding with resentment against her rather than in her Cabinet. It looks like Truss' Cabinet will instead be even more dominated by her loyalists and supporters than Boris' was
Each and everyone of those mentioned apart from Hunt are not fit for cabinet
An even bigger risk is Johnson on the back benches. He needs a big 4 Secretary of State role to keep him more-or-less inline. One with a big County House freebie would work for him.
2 ex PMs on the backbenches behind Truss too, May and Johnson, neither exactly desperate for her to be a great success. Though for different reasons
Thus replacing viciousness with stupidity? Go for it....
Truss also taking a risk having Patel, Sunak, Dowden, Raab, Barclay, Hunt, Shapps, Eustice, Greg Clark etc on the backbenches brooding with resentment against her rather than in her Cabinet. It looks like Truss' Cabinet will instead be even more dominated by her loyalists and supporters than Boris' was
Each and everyone of those mentioned apart from Hunt are not fit for cabinet
An even bigger risk is Johnson on the back benches. He needs a big 4 Secretary of State role to keep him more-or-less inline. One with a big County House freebie would work for him.
2 ex PMs on the backbenches behind Truss too, May and Johnson, neither exactly desperate for her to be a great success. Though for different reasons
Who was the last PM to have two ex-PMs in the Parliamentary party? I would guess Home in 1964 (Macmillan and Churchill)?
Thus replacing viciousness with stupidity? Go for it....
Truss also taking a risk having Patel, Sunak, Dowden, Raab, Barclay, Hunt, Shapps, Eustice, Greg Clark etc on the backbenches brooding with resentment against her rather than in her Cabinet. It looks like Truss' Cabinet will instead be even more dominated by her loyalists and supporters than Boris' was
Each and everyone of those mentioned apart from Hunt are not fit for cabinet
An even bigger risk is Johnson on the back benches. He needs a big 4 Secretary of State role to keep him more-or-less inline. One with a big County House freebie would work for him.
2 ex PMs on the backbenches behind Truss too, May and Johnson, neither exactly desperate for her to be a great success. Though for different reasons
Who was the last PM to have two ex-PMs in the Parliamentary party? I would guess Home in 1964 (Macmillan and Churchill)?
Thus replacing viciousness with stupidity? Go for it....
Truss also taking a risk having Patel, Sunak, Dowden, Raab, Barclay, Hunt, Shapps, Eustice, Greg Clark etc on the backbenches brooding with resentment against her rather than in her Cabinet. It looks like Truss' Cabinet will instead be even more dominated by her loyalists and supporters than Boris' was
Each and everyone of those mentioned apart from Hunt are not fit for cabinet
An even bigger risk is Johnson on the back benches. He needs a big 4 Secretary of State role to keep him more-or-less inline. One with a big County House freebie would work for him.
2 ex PMs on the backbenches behind Truss too, May and Johnson, neither exactly desperate for her to be a great success. Though for different reasons
Who was the last PM to have two ex-PMs in the Parliamentary party? I would guess Home in 1964 (Macmillan and Churchill)?
Major had Thatcher and Heath on the backbenches.
Ah, how could I forget Heath?
I suppose he must just have been rather forgettable.
Similarly of course Hague had two ex PMs on the backbenches when Leader of the Opposition, as did Foot and Kinnock.
Thus replacing viciousness with stupidity? Go for it....
Truss also taking a risk having Patel, Sunak, Dowden, Raab, Barclay, Hunt, Shapps, Eustice, Greg Clark etc on the backbenches brooding with resentment against her rather than in her Cabinet. It looks like Truss' Cabinet will instead be even more dominated by her loyalists and supporters than Boris' was
Each and everyone of those mentioned apart from Hunt are not fit for cabinet
So apparently even Sunak and Greg Clark and George Eustice are no longer fit for your preferred Cabinet? Rees Mogg, Braverman, Badenoch, Redwood, Frost, Kwarteng, Zahawi, IDS, Dorries though amongst those tipped for Truss' Cabinet
Thought experiment.
If you really tried hard, what's the worst possible Cabinet that could be derived from the current Parliamentary Conservative Party?
Thus replacing viciousness with stupidity? Go for it....
Truss also taking a risk having Patel, Sunak, Dowden, Raab, Barclay, Hunt, Shapps, Eustice, Greg Clark etc on the backbenches brooding with resentment against her rather than in her Cabinet. It looks like Truss' Cabinet will instead be even more dominated by her loyalists and supporters than Boris' was
Each and everyone of those mentioned apart from Hunt are not fit for cabinet
Be fair, Eustice has done OK, and not that long ago you thought highly of Sunak.
The others, perhaps you are a little generous in saying they're unfit for cabinet not unfit for a parish council.
Fair play, Eustice I agree but Sunak lost me some time ago
Thus replacing viciousness with stupidity? Go for it....
Truss also taking a risk having Patel, Sunak, Dowden, Raab, Barclay, Hunt, Shapps, Eustice, Greg Clark etc on the backbenches brooding with resentment against her rather than in her Cabinet. It looks like Truss' Cabinet will instead be even more dominated by her loyalists and supporters than Boris' was
Each and everyone of those mentioned apart from Hunt are not fit for cabinet
So apparently even Sunak and Greg Clark and George Eustice are no longer fit for your preferred Cabinet? Rees Mogg, Braverman, Badenoch, Redwood, Frost, Kwarteng, Zahawi, IDS, Dorries though amongst those tipped for Truss' Cabinet
Thought experiment.
If you really tried hard, what's the worst possible Cabinet that could be derived from the current Parliamentary Conservative Party?
Thus replacing viciousness with stupidity? Go for it....
Truss also taking a risk having Patel, Sunak, Dowden, Raab, Barclay, Hunt, Shapps, Eustice, Greg Clark etc on the backbenches brooding with resentment against her rather than in her Cabinet. It looks like Truss' Cabinet will instead be even more dominated by her loyalists and supporters than Boris' was
Each and everyone of those mentioned apart from Hunt are not fit for cabinet
So apparently even Sunak and Greg Clark and George Eustice are no longer fit for your preferred Cabinet? Rees Mogg, Braverman, Badenoch, Redwood, Frost, Kwarteng, Zahawi, IDS, Dorries though amongst those tipped for Truss' Cabinet
Sunak lost me, and to be honest apart from Badenoch, Kwarteng and Zahawi the rest fill me with dread
Thus replacing viciousness with stupidity? Go for it....
Truss also taking a risk having Patel, Sunak, Dowden, Raab, Barclay, Hunt, Shapps, Eustice, Greg Clark etc on the backbenches brooding with resentment against her rather than in her Cabinet. It looks like Truss' Cabinet will instead be even more dominated by her loyalists and supporters than Boris' was
Each and everyone of those mentioned apart from Hunt are not fit for cabinet
So apparently even Sunak and Greg Clark and George Eustice are no longer fit for your preferred Cabinet? Rees Mogg, Braverman, Badenoch, Redwood, Frost, Kwarteng, Zahawi, IDS, Dorries though amongst those tipped for Truss' Cabinet
Thought experiment.
If you really tried hard, what's the worst possible Cabinet that could be derived from the current Parliamentary Conservative Party?
Thus replacing viciousness with stupidity? Go for it....
Truss also taking a risk having Patel, Sunak, Dowden, Raab, Barclay, Hunt, Shapps, Eustice, Greg Clark etc on the backbenches brooding with resentment against her rather than in her Cabinet. It looks like Truss' Cabinet will instead be even more dominated by her loyalists and supporters than Boris' was
Each and everyone of those mentioned apart from Hunt are not fit for cabinet
So apparently even Sunak and Greg Clark and George Eustice are no longer fit for your preferred Cabinet? Rees Mogg, Braverman, Badenoch, Redwood, Frost, Kwarteng, Zahawi, IDS, Dorries though amongst those tipped for Truss' Cabinet
Thought experiment.
If you really tried hard, what's the worst possible Cabinet that could be derived from the current Parliamentary Conservative Party?
Thus replacing viciousness with stupidity? Go for it....
Truss also taking a risk having Patel, Sunak, Dowden, Raab, Barclay, Hunt, Shapps, Eustice, Greg Clark etc on the backbenches brooding with resentment against her rather than in her Cabinet. It looks like Truss' Cabinet will instead be even more dominated by her loyalists and supporters than Boris' was
Each and everyone of those mentioned apart from Hunt are not fit for cabinet
So apparently even Sunak and Greg Clark and George Eustice are no longer fit for your preferred Cabinet? Rees Mogg, Braverman, Badenoch, Redwood, Frost, Kwarteng, Zahawi, IDS, Dorries though amongst those tipped for Truss' Cabinet
Thought experiment.
If you really tried hard, what's the worst possible Cabinet that could be derived from the current Parliamentary Conservative Party?
Are these aliens woke? That would really make them a threat...
"All aliens are ipso facto woke. Because IF one of these critters is as fully and faithfully a foe of woke as say the Sainted Sage of Mar-a-Lardo, then is it not at least as good to go as a natural-born citizen, as say Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Cancun)?" - Petroleum V. Nasby V
Thus replacing viciousness with stupidity? Go for it....
Truss also taking a risk having Patel, Sunak, Dowden, Raab, Barclay, Hunt, Shapps, Eustice, Greg Clark etc on the backbenches brooding with resentment against her rather than in her Cabinet. It looks like Truss' Cabinet will instead be even more dominated by her loyalists and supporters than Boris' was
Each and everyone of those mentioned apart from Hunt are not fit for cabinet
So apparently even Sunak and Greg Clark and George Eustice are no longer fit for your preferred Cabinet? Rees Mogg, Braverman, Badenoch, Redwood, Frost, Kwarteng, Zahawi, IDS, Dorries though amongst those tipped for Truss' Cabinet
Thought experiment.
If you really tried hard, what's the worst possible Cabinet that could be derived from the current Parliamentary Conservative Party?
I made it for the first time yesterday, and it has been an enormous hit in the Smithson family. No mess. Delicious. Extremely unhealthy. What's not to like?
Thus replacing viciousness with stupidity? Go for it....
Truss also taking a risk having Patel, Sunak, Dowden, Raab, Barclay, Hunt, Shapps, Eustice, Greg Clark etc on the backbenches brooding with resentment against her rather than in her Cabinet. It looks like Truss' Cabinet will instead be even more dominated by her loyalists and supporters than Boris' was
Each and everyone of those mentioned apart from Hunt are not fit for cabinet
So apparently even Sunak and Greg Clark and George Eustice are no longer fit for your preferred Cabinet? Rees Mogg, Braverman, Badenoch, Redwood, Frost, Kwarteng, Zahawi, IDS, Dorries though amongst those tipped for Truss' Cabinet
Thought experiment.
If you really tried hard, what's the worst possible Cabinet that could be derived from the current Parliamentary Conservative Party?
Thus replacing viciousness with stupidity? Go for it....
Truss also taking a risk having Patel, Sunak, Dowden, Raab, Barclay, Hunt, Shapps, Eustice, Greg Clark etc on the backbenches brooding with resentment against her rather than in her Cabinet. It looks like Truss' Cabinet will instead be even more dominated by her loyalists and supporters than Boris' was
Each and everyone of those mentioned apart from Hunt are not fit for cabinet
So apparently even Sunak and Greg Clark and George Eustice are no longer fit for your preferred Cabinet? Rees Mogg, Braverman, Badenoch, Redwood, Frost, Kwarteng, Zahawi, IDS, Dorries though amongst those tipped for Truss' Cabinet
Thought experiment.
If you really tried hard, what's the worst possible Cabinet that could be derived from the current Parliamentary Conservative Party?
Disturbingly, most of them have been in cabinet. But that may be name recognition kicking in.
Francois, Bone, Bridgen, Chope, Philip Davies and Esther McVey would be a really, really special talents for Cabinet. Honourable mentions for Philp, Throup and Elphick too please. Oh, and are Rob Roberts and Pincher back on board?
Thus replacing viciousness with stupidity? Go for it....
Truss also taking a risk having Patel, Sunak, Dowden, Raab, Barclay, Hunt, Shapps, Eustice, Greg Clark etc on the backbenches brooding with resentment against her rather than in her Cabinet. It looks like Truss' Cabinet will instead be even more dominated by her loyalists and supporters than Boris' was
Each and everyone of those mentioned apart from Hunt are not fit for cabinet
So apparently even Sunak and Greg Clark and George Eustice are no longer fit for your preferred Cabinet? Rees Mogg, Braverman, Badenoch, Redwood, Frost, Kwarteng, Zahawi, IDS, Dorries though amongst those tipped for Truss' Cabinet
Thought experiment.
If you really tried hard, what's the worst possible Cabinet that could be derived from the current Parliamentary Conservative Party?
Thus replacing viciousness with stupidity? Go for it....
Truss also taking a risk having Patel, Sunak, Dowden, Raab, Barclay, Hunt, Shapps, Eustice, Greg Clark etc on the backbenches brooding with resentment against her rather than in her Cabinet. It looks like Truss' Cabinet will instead be even more dominated by her loyalists and supporters than Boris' was
Each and everyone of those mentioned apart from Hunt are not fit for cabinet
So apparently even Sunak and Greg Clark and George Eustice are no longer fit for your preferred Cabinet? Rees Mogg, Braverman, Badenoch, Redwood, Frost, Kwarteng, Zahawi, IDS, Dorries though amongst those tipped for Truss' Cabinet
Thought experiment.
If you really tried hard, what's the worst possible Cabinet that could be derived from the current Parliamentary Conservative Party?
Comments
The runway does LOOK extremely and unexpectedly long, but that's because it is in such a remote place with no buildings around
Though I do concede that "I believe I am right and in time people will agree" crops up quite a lot as a position to take.
Off topic, unable to use our tickets for day 4 of the test (credit btw to Lancashire for refunding me within minutes of the last wicket falling yesterday), my Dad and I have been to the Lake District. We had an absolutely perfect day on Dow Crag and the Old Man of Coniston (and a drink in the Black Bull, which is possibly my favourite pub.) Seven and a half miles and 2600 feet of ascent. My Dad is 75. He wasn't the oldest man on the Old Man but of the hundreds of people we saw today was probably in the top two. He was a little uncertain that he still had a walk like this in his legs and we had a couple of potential escape routes, but we did it. It was his second attempt at the Old Man, the first being in 1966, when the weather drew in and he got lost. So I was pleased to be with him when he eventually ticked it off. Also pretty proud of him. I hope I can still do that at 75.
It was, by the way, wonderful up there. Possibly the finest view in England. Scafell Pike is higher, but the Old Man gives you views over Morecambe Bay, the Irish Sea, Windermere, the Duddon Valley, Helvellyn, the Langdales... everywhere you looked was dramatic and beautiful. And enjoyably busy at the top. I enjoy solitude, but I also enjoy seeing people enjoying my hobby and getting the same joy and satisfaction from the hills that I do.
I need a motive for him to go to such lengths. I've checked out this guy and I cannot see it
If he is lying the conspiracy is fantastically intricate, clever, and prolonged, which raises profound questions by itself
There are other possibilities. Some people come to believe their own lies. I knew one such at Uni 30 years ago. Told whoppers about events that we’d both been at that I knew were lies. But he had convinced himself they were true.
Doesn't rule out RN/RAF ones.
https://www.uapmedia.uk/articles/calvinerevealed
That's what I was looking at and talking about just now and that is a Harrier. Call this image A.
I hadn't seen this new image which we will call B. Hmm. I can't see the new plane very clearly - but ignore that for a moment and look at the photo as a whole. T
A Harrier would bimble along at what, something of the order of 400-500kn if trying moderately, but that is still 400-500 nautical miles an hour. That's about 300 yards a second.
This is low level, so a Tornado can't fly as fast as it can at altitude - Wiki says maximum speed 800kn near sea level.
A Tornado is about 16-19m long, dep. on variant - a Harrier is a bit less, 14m or so. So the planes are at about the same distance from the camera. And they are flying at a speed potentially measured in dozens of plane lengths per second -[edit] 20-ish for the Harrier, 50-ish for the Tornado?
But when one compares pics A and B they have the same relationship between the tail end of the thingy, the front corner of the let's-say-for-now-it-is-a-Harrier fin, and the right top corner of the fencepost - all in a straight line, pretty much. The foliage and fence posts are very similar.
This\ sort of in-a-line relationship is VERY sensitive to change - I use it for checking same vs different typesettings of books printed by the same firm from the same type (which can be unbelievably similar, but the technique works every time when you look at a few sample pages).
I'd say that the time between pics A and B is so small that it's not discernible on the rough online images we have. Therte is no sense of tracking (shame we don't have a background). Yet a Tornado has suddenly appeared in the shot in pic B?
He has 400 followers on Twitter. He's not some publicity prostitute, as far as I can see
Moreover, he is taking a silly risk if he IS lying. He has a respectable and quite successful career in video editing. Why endanger all that to tell massively embroidered fibs on YouTube?
I believe he is legit and he is honestly saying what he saw: six negatives of the Calvine incident. We already know one must exist because we've seen the result
However, he could still be wholly mistaken in what he believes he saw. And he might have seen cleverly hoaxed photos
This photo above is a mock-up. The photographer has inserted a blurry photo of a Tornado in roughly the same place as the ACTUAL plane in the Real Photo, to show how he thinks the actual plane could be a Tornado not a Harrier (but blurred by bad reproduction and speed of the airplane)
It's worth watching the entire interview if you have time, to grasp everything he says. I skipped some of the totally boring camera analysis stuff, but he definitely knows his shit, right down to the type of film used
Intriguingly, he says he saw a second plane in one of the negatives. This conforms with the MoD analysis of the photos, they also mention a just-about-visible second plane. But they concluded, of course, that both planes were Harriers
The jizz* is all wrong for a Tornado, and I had no [edit] prior reason to pick a Harrier rather than a Tornado when looking at the original. .
*sensu twitcher.
Edit: I did consider what other options there might be if it weren't a Harrier, but option 2 was a Hawk (unsurprisingly, as form the same design team).
Where are the pilots?
Technology has moved on. Unless it were a much more lethal and equally infectious disease, then it ought not be necessary.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFc9pe2-RdE
The large turbines turn slower, and so are much less dangerous to birds. A further benefit of offshore location is that turbines can be more easily placed in areas where birds don't congregate in large numbers.
"Channel migrants: More than 25,000 cross to Kent so far in 2022"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-62705913
Almost as if they are bits of different images....
It's like a decent birdwatcher seeing a photo of a bird in flight; if he reckons it is a gannet hje'll find it odd being told it's a pelican.
And there is a reason to explain the plane as a Tornado not a Harrier (for instance, the aforesaid anomaly concerning records, and the point that Tornadoes would be alert aircraft in Scotland, at Leuchars).
Still not happy. (But we have not seen 5 of the images, have we?)
Like you, the jizz to me says "Harrier". It has that highly distinctive chunkiness
But what about those non-existent records? Very mysterious
Unlucky Barings.
Edzit: TBF the chap might be right - yet he has not shown us the evidence from several photos of the same plane at different times and therefore different lighting/viewer orientations. (and he probably cannot do so) Not so much anecdata as data not provided to us.
Asking for a lady friend.
with Braverman
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11151197/Home-Secretary-Priti-Patel-faces-axed-cabinet-Liz-Truss-staying-neutral-race.html
Barely, Eustice, Shapps and Raab amongst others facing the axe in Truss' Cabinet cull. Sunak and Gove also will not be offered roles they would accept
Why should a French President lose votes, for his party, just because you gave him some small change and just because he signed some agreement?
Illegal aliens from abroad.
Another day on PB!
'Night all......
Have you watched any of the video? I watched most of it (yes, 2 and a half hours)
I am 98.4% sure he is telling the truth. No one can lie that well for that long. 30 years ago he saw 6 negatives as he describes, of this same incident, and he is honestly convinced they showed a man made stealth aircraft
So the negatives very like exist, or existed. Where are they now? Surely someone made copies?
https://frontex.europa.eu/media-centre/news/news-release/eu-s-external-borders-in-july-increased-number-of-crossings-on-the-central-mediterranean-vCtsyr
The world is on the move.
I wouldn't say that described Barclay.
The others, perhaps you are a little generous in saying they're unfit for cabinet not unfit for a parish council.
Unlike after winning a General Election when the victorious Party leader can more or less do what he or she wants, winning an internal election is different in that the defeated candidate and his/her supporters owe you no favours and only Party loyalty and discipline.
Truss (assuming it is she) will presumably need to stamp her authority on the party via the Whips' Office and the appointment of an ultra-loyalist (and potential scapegoat) as Party Chair. As the membership dominate the Conference she has little to worry about there but the Commons will be very different.
I suppose he must just have been rather forgettable.
Similarly of course Hague had two ex PMs on the backbenches when Leader of the Opposition, as did Foot and Kinnock.
If you really tried hard, what's the worst possible Cabinet that could be derived from the current Parliamentary Conservative Party?
And how close are we to getting that?
Don't have nightmares, everyone.
Patel
Truss
Braverman
Shapps
Redwood
Barclay
Gove
Williamson
Cash
Pincher
Dehenna Davison
Zahawi
Raab
Jenkyn
Dorries
Mogg
Disturbingly, most of them have been in cabinet. But that may be name recognition kicking in.
Serious end of Cold War nostalgia, and pretty amusing. Great soundtrack.
The internet / TikTok / etc is full of recipes for egg and cheese (and possibly bacon) sandwiches.
Like this one - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTFjFayRjtw
I made it for the first time yesterday, and it has been an enormous hit in the Smithson family. No mess. Delicious. Extremely unhealthy. What's not to like?
Damn! I forgot Fabricant!