Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Why being anti-lockdown might not be popular – politicalbetting.com

13567

Comments

  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,637

    Leon said:

    Sandpit said:

    Leon said:

    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.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Machrihanish
    https://www.theregister.com/2000/07/10/top_secret_us_plane_caused/

    (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’

    http://www.ukairfields.org.uk/runway-lengths.html
    Visit Scotland disagrees. I have no idea. I just use runways I don't measure them

    "Campbeltown is situated 3 miles to the west of the airport and can be easily accessed with a taxi or hire car.

    The airport runway, at 3,049 m, is the longest in Europe and RAF Machrihanish hosted UK military and NATO base operations here until 1997. "

    https://www.visitscotland.com/info/transport/campbeltown-airport-cal-p267901
    Looking at the Wiki list, it's not even close:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_longest_runways

    My earlier post was wrong on that part...
    Yes, it seems to be completely wrong. Tut tut Visit Scotland

    The runway does LOOK extremely and unexpectedly long, but that's because it is in such a remote place with no buildings around
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 11,239
    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.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 49,002
    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    The Calvine UFO photo


    An interview with a Scottish photographer who saw all six images

    https://twitter.com/the_jandashow/status/1561374479464517642?s=20&t=0ckT2y-NECV25SaJGx8wyA


    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

    https://us.airfix.com/community/blog-and-news/aerodrome/raf-tornado-formation-tribute

    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.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 49,002
    Leon said:

    Here is the Twitter account of the Scottish tog that saw "all 6 negatives", when he was 19 at the Daily Record


    https://twitter.com/iamstulittle/status/1561997819656937472?s=20&t=SAqkQx7n_jJlxgxNsd9cRQ


    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.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 3,639

    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.

    I hope you sent her to Jail without passing Go
  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,637
    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    Here is the Twitter account of the Scottish tog that saw "all 6 negatives", when he was 19 at the Daily Record


    https://twitter.com/iamstulittle/status/1561997819656937472?s=20&t=SAqkQx7n_jJlxgxNsd9cRQ


    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
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 11,576
    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    Here is the Twitter account of the Scottish tog that saw "all 6 negatives", when he was 19 at the Daily Record


    https://twitter.com/iamstulittle/status/1561997819656937472?s=20&t=SAqkQx7n_jJlxgxNsd9cRQ


    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.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,356
    edited August 2022
    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
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 19,093
    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    Here is the Twitter account of the Scottish tog that saw "all 6 negatives", when he was 19 at the Daily Record


    https://twitter.com/iamstulittle/status/1561997819656937472?s=20&t=SAqkQx7n_jJlxgxNsd9cRQ


    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.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 28,187
    edited August 2022
    Comment deleted due to picture fail :(
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 2,930
    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    The Calvine UFO photo


    An interview with a Scottish photographer who saw all six images

    https://twitter.com/the_jandashow/status/1561374479464517642?s=20&t=0ckT2y-NECV25SaJGx8wyA


    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

    https://us.airfix.com/community/blog-and-news/aerodrome/raf-tornado-formation-tribute

    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.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 2,798
    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    The Calvine UFO photo


    An interview with a Scottish photographer who saw all six images

    https://twitter.com/the_jandashow/status/1561374479464517642?s=20&t=0ckT2y-NECV25SaJGx8wyA


    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

    https://us.airfix.com/community/blog-and-news/aerodrome/raf-tornado-formation-tribute

    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.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 25,298

    Comment deleted due to picture fail :(

    I saw it.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,836
    edited August 2022
    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    The Calvine UFO photo


    An interview with a Scottish photographer who saw all six images

    https://twitter.com/the_jandashow/status/1561374479464517642?s=20&t=0ckT2y-NECV25SaJGx8wyA


    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

    https://us.airfix.com/community/blog-and-news/aerodrome/raf-tornado-formation-tribute

    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?

    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?
  • dixiedean said:

    Comment deleted due to picture fail :(

    I saw it.
    On my screen it was sideways. I might try and rectify later.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 19,093
    dixiedean said:

    Comment deleted due to picture fail :(

    I saw it.
    I saw it too!
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 32,812
    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    The Calvine UFO photo


    An interview with a Scottish photographer who saw all six images

    https://twitter.com/the_jandashow/status/1561374479464517642?s=20&t=0ckT2y-NECV25SaJGx8wyA


    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

    https://us.airfix.com/community/blog-and-news/aerodrome/raf-tornado-formation-tribute

    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... ;)
  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,637

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    Here is the Twitter account of the Scottish tog that saw "all 6 negatives", when he was 19 at the Daily Record


    https://twitter.com/iamstulittle/status/1561997819656937472?s=20&t=SAqkQx7n_jJlxgxNsd9cRQ


    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
  • dixiedean said:

    Comment deleted due to picture fail :(

    I saw it.
    I saw it too!
    I need to sort out landscape vs portrait. I think the system only likes landscape photos and turns portraits sideways.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,110
    .

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    The Calvine UFO photo


    An interview with a Scottish photographer who saw all six images

    https://twitter.com/the_jandashow/status/1561374479464517642?s=20&t=0ckT2y-NECV25SaJGx8wyA


    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

    https://us.airfix.com/community/blog-and-news/aerodrome/raf-tornado-formation-tribute

    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?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,836
    Eabhal said:

    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    The Calvine UFO photo


    An interview with a Scottish photographer who saw all six images

    https://twitter.com/the_jandashow/status/1561374479464517642?s=20&t=0ckT2y-NECV25SaJGx8wyA


    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

    https://us.airfix.com/community/blog-and-news/aerodrome/raf-tornado-formation-tribute

    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).
  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,637
    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    The Calvine UFO photo


    An interview with a Scottish photographer who saw all six images

    https://twitter.com/the_jandashow/status/1561374479464517642?s=20&t=0ckT2y-NECV25SaJGx8wyA


    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

    https://us.airfix.com/community/blog-and-news/aerodrome/raf-tornado-formation-tribute

    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?

    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?
    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

  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,637

    dixiedean said:

    Comment deleted due to picture fail :(

    I saw it.
    I saw it too!
    I need to sort out landscape vs portrait. I think the system only likes landscape photos and turns portraits sideways.
    It's bizarrely capricious. Sometimes Portrait works, sometimes not
  • CatManCatMan Posts: 1,816
    dixiedean said:

    Comment deleted due to picture fail :(

    I saw it.
    Me too!
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 19,093

    dixiedean said:

    Comment deleted due to picture fail :(

    I saw it.
    On my screen it was sideways. I might try and rectify later.
    The sideways shot worked fine.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,836
    edited August 2022
    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    The Calvine UFO photo


    An interview with a Scottish photographer who saw all six images

    https://twitter.com/the_jandashow/status/1561374479464517642?s=20&t=0ckT2y-NECV25SaJGx8wyA


    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

    https://us.airfix.com/community/blog-and-news/aerodrome/raf-tornado-formation-tribute

    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?

    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?
    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).

  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,637
    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    The Calvine UFO photo


    An interview with a Scottish photographer who saw all six images

    https://twitter.com/the_jandashow/status/1561374479464517642?s=20&t=0ckT2y-NECV25SaJGx8wyA


    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

    https://us.airfix.com/community/blog-and-news/aerodrome/raf-tornado-formation-tribute

    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?

    Where are the pilots?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 47,316
    IshmaelZ said:

    Shit, does that mean it will all happen again if it hyappens again? Can't bear it.

    No.
    Technology has moved on. Unless it were a much more lethal and equally infectious disease, then it ought not be necessary.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,637
    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    The Calvine UFO photo


    An interview with a Scottish photographer who saw all six images

    https://twitter.com/the_jandashow/status/1561374479464517642?s=20&t=0ckT2y-NECV25SaJGx8wyA


    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

    https://us.airfix.com/community/blog-and-news/aerodrome/raf-tornado-formation-tribute

    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?

    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?
    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).

    Go to 1:18 here where he discusses the plane


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFc9pe2-RdE
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 32,145
    geoffw said:

    pigeon said:

    geoffw said:

    carnforth said:

    From The Times today:


    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.
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 7,494
    Just remind me again about Ms Patel's Wonder Policy to deter migrants. How many have we sent to Rwanda? Something like a dozen?

    "Channel migrants: More than 25,000 cross to Kent so far in 2022"

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-62705913
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 47,316

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    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.
    And what’s your excuse ?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 32,145
    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    The Calvine UFO photo


    An interview with a Scottish photographer who saw all six images

    https://twitter.com/the_jandashow/status/1561374479464517642?s=20&t=0ckT2y-NECV25SaJGx8wyA


    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

    https://us.airfix.com/community/blog-and-news/aerodrome/raf-tornado-formation-tribute

    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....
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,110

    Just remind me again about Ms Patel's Wonder Policy to deter migrants. How many have we sent to Rwanda? Something like a dozen?

    "Channel migrants: More than 25,000 cross to Kent so far in 2022"

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-62705913

    It says in the article.. none. Grounded because of legal challenges. So it makes sense the numbers are up.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,637

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    The Calvine UFO photo


    An interview with a Scottish photographer who saw all six images

    https://twitter.com/the_jandashow/status/1561374479464517642?s=20&t=0ckT2y-NECV25SaJGx8wyA


    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

    https://us.airfix.com/community/blog-and-news/aerodrome/raf-tornado-formation-tribute

    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....
    The 2nd photo is a mock-up
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,836
    edited August 2022
    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    The Calvine UFO photo


    An interview with a Scottish photographer who saw all six images

    https://twitter.com/the_jandashow/status/1561374479464517642?s=20&t=0ckT2y-NECV25SaJGx8wyA


    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

    https://us.airfix.com/community/blog-and-news/aerodrome/raf-tornado-formation-tribute

    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?

    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?
    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).

    Go to 1:18 here where he discusses the plane


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFc9pe2-RdE
    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    The Calvine UFO photo


    An interview with a Scottish photographer who saw all six images

    https://twitter.com/the_jandashow/status/1561374479464517642?s=20&t=0ckT2y-NECV25SaJGx8wyA


    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

    https://us.airfix.com/community/blog-and-news/aerodrome/raf-tornado-formation-tribute

    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?

    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?
    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).

    Go to 1:18 here where he discusses the plane


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFc9pe2-RdE
    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?)
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 19,093
    edited August 2022

    Just remind me again about Ms Patel's Wonder Policy to deter migrants. How many have we sent to Rwanda? Something like a dozen?

    "Channel migrants: More than 25,000 cross to Kent so far in 2022"

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-62705913

    I think a little less than a dozen. Unless I am mistaken, twelve less than a dozen.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,637
    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    The Calvine UFO photo


    An interview with a Scottish photographer who saw all six images

    https://twitter.com/the_jandashow/status/1561374479464517642?s=20&t=0ckT2y-NECV25SaJGx8wyA


    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

    https://us.airfix.com/community/blog-and-news/aerodrome/raf-tornado-formation-tribute

    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?

    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?
    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).

    Go to 1:18 here where he discusses the plane


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFc9pe2-RdE
    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    The Calvine UFO photo


    An interview with a Scottish photographer who saw all six images

    https://twitter.com/the_jandashow/status/1561374479464517642?s=20&t=0ckT2y-NECV25SaJGx8wyA


    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

    https://us.airfix.com/community/blog-and-news/aerodrome/raf-tornado-formation-tribute

    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?

    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?
    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).

    Go to 1:18 here where he discusses the plane


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFc9pe2-RdE
    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
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 7,494
    RobD said:

    Just remind me again about Ms Patel's Wonder Policy to deter migrants. How many have we sent to Rwanda? Something like a dozen?

    "Channel migrants: More than 25,000 cross to Kent so far in 2022"

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-62705913

    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.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 47,316
    rcs1000 said:

    DougSeal said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    And on it goes


    “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”


    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11153049/BBC-tells-staff-watch-170-different-forms-unconscious-bias.html

    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.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,110

    RobD said:

    Just remind me again about Ms Patel's Wonder Policy to deter migrants. How many have we sent to Rwanda? Something like a dozen?

    "Channel migrants: More than 25,000 cross to Kent so far in 2022"

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-62705913

    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.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,836
    edited August 2022
    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    The Calvine UFO photo


    An interview with a Scottish photographer who saw all six images

    https://twitter.com/the_jandashow/status/1561374479464517642?s=20&t=0ckT2y-NECV25SaJGx8wyA


    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

    https://us.airfix.com/community/blog-and-news/aerodrome/raf-tornado-formation-tribute

    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?

    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?
    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).

    Go to 1:18 here where he discusses the plane


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFc9pe2-RdE
    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    The Calvine UFO photo


    An interview with a Scottish photographer who saw all six images

    https://twitter.com/the_jandashow/status/1561374479464517642?s=20&t=0ckT2y-NECV25SaJGx8wyA


    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

    https://us.airfix.com/community/blog-and-news/aerodrome/raf-tornado-formation-tribute

    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?

    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?
    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).

    Go to 1:18 here where he discusses the plane


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFc9pe2-RdE
    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.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 19,093
    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    Just remind me again about Ms Patel's Wonder Policy to deter migrants. How many have we sent to Rwanda? Something like a dozen?

    "Channel migrants: More than 25,000 cross to Kent so far in 2022"

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-62705913

    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.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,356
    edited August 2022

    Just remind me again about Ms Patel's Wonder Policy to deter migrants. How many have we sent to Rwanda? Something like a dozen?

    "Channel migrants: More than 25,000 cross to Kent so far in 2022"

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-62705913

    Though Truss will apparently sack Patel from the Cabinet and replace her
    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
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 19,093
    Nigelb said:

    rcs1000 said:

    DougSeal said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    And on it goes


    “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”


    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11153049/BBC-tells-staff-watch-170-different-forms-unconscious-bias.html

    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.
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 7,494
    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    Just remind me again about Ms Patel's Wonder Policy to deter migrants. How many have we sent to Rwanda? Something like a dozen?

    "Channel migrants: More than 25,000 cross to Kent so far in 2022"

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-62705913

    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...
  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,637
    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    The Calvine UFO photo


    An interview with a Scottish photographer who saw all six images

    https://twitter.com/the_jandashow/status/1561374479464517642?s=20&t=0ckT2y-NECV25SaJGx8wyA


    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

    https://us.airfix.com/community/blog-and-news/aerodrome/raf-tornado-formation-tribute

    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?

    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?
    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).

    Go to 1:18 here where he discusses the plane


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFc9pe2-RdE
    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    The Calvine UFO photo


    An interview with a Scottish photographer who saw all six images

    https://twitter.com/the_jandashow/status/1561374479464517642?s=20&t=0ckT2y-NECV25SaJGx8wyA


    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

    https://us.airfix.com/community/blog-and-news/aerodrome/raf-tornado-formation-tribute

    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?

    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?
    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).

    Go to 1:18 here where he discusses the plane


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFc9pe2-RdE
    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?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,110
    edited August 2022

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    Just remind me again about Ms Patel's Wonder Policy to deter migrants. How many have we sent to Rwanda? Something like a dozen?

    "Channel migrants: More than 25,000 cross to Kent so far in 2022"

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-62705913

    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.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,110

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    Just remind me again about Ms Patel's Wonder Policy to deter migrants. How many have we sent to Rwanda? Something like a dozen?

    "Channel migrants: More than 25,000 cross to Kent so far in 2022"

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-62705913

    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?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,836
    edited August 2022
    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    The Calvine UFO photo


    An interview with a Scottish photographer who saw all six images

    https://twitter.com/the_jandashow/status/1561374479464517642?s=20&t=0ckT2y-NECV25SaJGx8wyA


    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

    https://us.airfix.com/community/blog-and-news/aerodrome/raf-tornado-formation-tribute

    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?

    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?
    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).

    Go to 1:18 here where he discusses the plane


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFc9pe2-RdE
    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    The Calvine UFO photo


    An interview with a Scottish photographer who saw all six images

    https://twitter.com/the_jandashow/status/1561374479464517642?s=20&t=0ckT2y-NECV25SaJGx8wyA


    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

    https://us.airfix.com/community/blog-and-news/aerodrome/raf-tornado-formation-tribute

    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?

    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?
    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).

    Go to 1:18 here where he discusses the plane


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFc9pe2-RdE
    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?
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 7,494
    HYUFD said:

    Just remind me again about Ms Patel's Wonder Policy to deter migrants. How many have we sent to Rwanda? Something like a dozen?

    "Channel migrants: More than 25,000 cross to Kent so far in 2022"

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-62705913

    Though Truss will apparently sack Patel from the Cabinet and replace her
    with Braverman

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11151197/Home-Secretary-Priti-Patel-faces-axed-cabinet-Liz-Truss-staying-neutral-race.html
    Thus replacing viciousness with stupidity? Go for it....
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 32,145
    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    Just remind me again about Ms Patel's Wonder Policy to deter migrants. How many have we sent to Rwanda? Something like a dozen?

    "Channel migrants: More than 25,000 cross to Kent so far in 2022"

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-62705913

    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?
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 7,494
    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    Just remind me again about Ms Patel's Wonder Policy to deter migrants. How many have we sent to Rwanda? Something like a dozen?

    "Channel migrants: More than 25,000 cross to Kent so far in 2022"

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-62705913

    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?
    Because now we have zero influence.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,356
    HYUFD said:

    Just remind me again about Ms Patel's Wonder Policy to deter migrants. How many have we sent to Rwanda? Something like a dozen?

    "Channel migrants: More than 25,000 cross to Kent so far in 2022"

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-62705913

    Though Truss will apparently sack Patel from the Cabinet and replace her
    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
    Sorry Barclay not Barely
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 7,494
    Aliens from space.

    Illegal aliens from abroad.

    Another day on PB!

    'Night all......
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,110

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    Just remind me again about Ms Patel's Wonder Policy to deter migrants. How many have we sent to Rwanda? Something like a dozen?

    "Channel migrants: More than 25,000 cross to Kent so far in 2022"

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-62705913

    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?
    Because now we have zero influence.
    Yet they talk about continuing cooperation even after Brexit?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,637
    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    The Calvine UFO photo


    An interview with a Scottish photographer who saw all six images

    https://twitter.com/the_jandashow/status/1561374479464517642?s=20&t=0ckT2y-NECV25SaJGx8wyA


    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

    https://us.airfix.com/community/blog-and-news/aerodrome/raf-tornado-formation-tribute

    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?

    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?
    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).

    Go to 1:18 here where he discusses the plane


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFc9pe2-RdE
    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    The Calvine UFO photo


    An interview with a Scottish photographer who saw all six images

    https://twitter.com/the_jandashow/status/1561374479464517642?s=20&t=0ckT2y-NECV25SaJGx8wyA


    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

    https://us.airfix.com/community/blog-and-news/aerodrome/raf-tornado-formation-tribute

    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?

    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?
    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).

    Go to 1:18 here where he discusses the plane


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFc9pe2-RdE
    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?
  • RobD said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    Just remind me again about Ms Patel's Wonder Policy to deter migrants. How many have we sent to Rwanda? Something like a dozen?

    "Channel migrants: More than 25,000 cross to Kent so far in 2022"

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-62705913

    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?
    Because now we have zero influence.
    As opposed to before Brexit when we had... zero influence.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,110

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    Just remind me again about Ms Patel's Wonder Policy to deter migrants. How many have we sent to Rwanda? Something like a dozen?

    "Channel migrants: More than 25,000 cross to Kent so far in 2022"

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-62705913

    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.
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 2,641
    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 .
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    Just remind me again about Ms Patel's Wonder Policy to deter migrants. How many have we sent to Rwanda? Something like a dozen?

    "Channel migrants: More than 25,000 cross to Kent so far in 2022"

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-62705913

    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

    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.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,110
    nico679 said:

    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.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,110
    IshmaelZ said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    Just remind me again about Ms Patel's Wonder Policy to deter migrants. How many have we sent to Rwanda? Something like a dozen?

    "Channel migrants: More than 25,000 cross to Kent so far in 2022"

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-62705913

    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

    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.
    Probably shouldn't have advertised those sunlight uplands so extensively.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 47,316
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Just remind me again about Ms Patel's Wonder Policy to deter migrants. How many have we sent to Rwanda? Something like a dozen?

    "Channel migrants: More than 25,000 cross to Kent so far in 2022"

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-62705913

    Though Truss will apparently sack Patel from the Cabinet and replace her
    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
    Sorry Barclay not Barely
    Barely useless is a pretty good description, actually.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,356
    edited August 2022

    HYUFD said:

    Just remind me again about Ms Patel's Wonder Policy to deter migrants. How many have we sent to Rwanda? Something like a dozen?

    "Channel migrants: More than 25,000 cross to Kent so far in 2022"

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-62705913

    Though Truss will apparently sack Patel from the Cabinet and replace her
    with Braverman

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11151197/Home-Secretary-Priti-Patel-faces-axed-cabinet-Liz-Truss-staying-neutral-race.html
    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
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 47,316

    Are these aliens woke? That would really make them a threat...

    End of civilisation, but not as we know it Jim ?
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 19,093
    RobD said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    Just remind me again about Ms Patel's Wonder Policy to deter migrants. How many have we sent to Rwanda? Something like a dozen?

    "Channel migrants: More than 25,000 cross to Kent so far in 2022"

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-62705913

    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

    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.
    Probably shouldn't have advertised those sunlight uplands so extensively.
    Indeed, once through to Calais they just can't wait to cross the Channel and ride our unicorns.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 19,093
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Just remind me again about Ms Patel's Wonder Policy to deter migrants. How many have we sent to Rwanda? Something like a dozen?

    "Channel migrants: More than 25,000 cross to Kent so far in 2022"

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-62705913

    Though Truss will apparently sack Patel from the Cabinet and replace her
    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
    Sorry Barclay not Barely
    You were right the first time!
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,756
    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Just remind me again about Ms Patel's Wonder Policy to deter migrants. How many have we sent to Rwanda? Something like a dozen?

    "Channel migrants: More than 25,000 cross to Kent so far in 2022"

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-62705913

    Though Truss will apparently sack Patel from the Cabinet and replace her
    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
    Sorry Barclay not Barely
    Barely useless is a pretty good description, actually.
    If somebody is barely useless, aren't they almost useful?

    I wouldn't say that described Barclay.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,756
    Nigelb said:

    Are these aliens woke? That would really make them a threat...

    End of civilisation, but not as we know it Jim ?
    Spock the difference.
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Just remind me again about Ms Patel's Wonder Policy to deter migrants. How many have we sent to Rwanda? Something like a dozen?

    "Channel migrants: More than 25,000 cross to Kent so far in 2022"

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-62705913

    Though Truss will apparently sack Patel from the Cabinet and replace her
    with Braverman

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11151197/Home-Secretary-Priti-Patel-faces-axed-cabinet-Liz-Truss-staying-neutral-race.html
    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
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 19,093

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Just remind me again about Ms Patel's Wonder Policy to deter migrants. How many have we sent to Rwanda? Something like a dozen?

    "Channel migrants: More than 25,000 cross to Kent so far in 2022"

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-62705913

    Though Truss will apparently sack Patel from the Cabinet and replace her
    with Braverman

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11151197/Home-Secretary-Priti-Patel-faces-axed-cabinet-Liz-Truss-staying-neutral-race.html
    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.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,756

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Just remind me again about Ms Patel's Wonder Policy to deter migrants. How many have we sent to Rwanda? Something like a dozen?

    "Channel migrants: More than 25,000 cross to Kent so far in 2022"

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-62705913

    Though Truss will apparently sack Patel from the Cabinet and replace her
    with Braverman

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11151197/Home-Secretary-Priti-Patel-faces-axed-cabinet-Liz-Truss-staying-neutral-race.html
    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.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 47,316
    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Just remind me again about Ms Patel's Wonder Policy to deter migrants. How many have we sent to Rwanda? Something like a dozen?

    "Channel migrants: More than 25,000 cross to Kent so far in 2022"

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-62705913

    Though Truss will apparently sack Patel from the Cabinet and replace her
    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
    Sorry Barclay not Barely
    Barely useless is a pretty good description, actually.
    If somebody is barely useless, aren't they almost useful?

    I wouldn't say that described Barclay.
    I meant approaching useless, from the underside.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,356

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Just remind me again about Ms Patel's Wonder Policy to deter migrants. How many have we sent to Rwanda? Something like a dozen?

    "Channel migrants: More than 25,000 cross to Kent so far in 2022"

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-62705913

    Though Truss will apparently sack Patel from the Cabinet and replace her
    with Braverman

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11151197/Home-Secretary-Priti-Patel-faces-axed-cabinet-Liz-Truss-staying-neutral-race.html
    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
  • CiceroCicero Posts: 1,526
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Just remind me again about Ms Patel's Wonder Policy to deter migrants. How many have we sent to Rwanda? Something like a dozen?

    "Channel migrants: More than 25,000 cross to Kent so far in 2022"

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-62705913

    Though Truss will apparently sack Patel from the Cabinet and replace her
    with Braverman

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11151197/Home-Secretary-Priti-Patel-faces-axed-cabinet-Liz-Truss-staying-neutral-race.html
    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.
  • londonpubmanlondonpubman Posts: 2,081
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Just remind me again about Ms Patel's Wonder Policy to deter migrants. How many have we sent to Rwanda? Something like a dozen?

    "Channel migrants: More than 25,000 cross to Kent so far in 2022"

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-62705913

    Though Truss will apparently sack Patel from the Cabinet and replace her
    with Braverman

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11151197/Home-Secretary-Priti-Patel-faces-axed-cabinet-Liz-Truss-staying-neutral-race.html
    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
    Looks like CON on 0% soon 👍
  • stodgestodge Posts: 11,244
    HYUFD said:


    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.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,356

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Just remind me again about Ms Patel's Wonder Policy to deter migrants. How many have we sent to Rwanda? Something like a dozen?

    "Channel migrants: More than 25,000 cross to Kent so far in 2022"

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-62705913

    Though Truss will apparently sack Patel from the Cabinet and replace her
    with Braverman

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11151197/Home-Secretary-Priti-Patel-faces-axed-cabinet-Liz-Truss-staying-neutral-race.html
    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
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,756
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Just remind me again about Ms Patel's Wonder Policy to deter migrants. How many have we sent to Rwanda? Something like a dozen?

    "Channel migrants: More than 25,000 cross to Kent so far in 2022"

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-62705913

    Though Truss will apparently sack Patel from the Cabinet and replace her
    with Braverman

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11151197/Home-Secretary-Priti-Patel-faces-axed-cabinet-Liz-Truss-staying-neutral-race.html
    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)?
  • DM_AndyDM_Andy Posts: 220
    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Just remind me again about Ms Patel's Wonder Policy to deter migrants. How many have we sent to Rwanda? Something like a dozen?

    "Channel migrants: More than 25,000 cross to Kent so far in 2022"

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-62705913

    Though Truss will apparently sack Patel from the Cabinet and replace her
    with Braverman

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11151197/Home-Secretary-Priti-Patel-faces-axed-cabinet-Liz-Truss-staying-neutral-race.html
    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.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,756
    DM_Andy said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Just remind me again about Ms Patel's Wonder Policy to deter migrants. How many have we sent to Rwanda? Something like a dozen?

    "Channel migrants: More than 25,000 cross to Kent so far in 2022"

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-62705913

    Though Truss will apparently sack Patel from the Cabinet and replace her
    with Braverman

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11151197/Home-Secretary-Priti-Patel-faces-axed-cabinet-Liz-Truss-staying-neutral-race.html
    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.
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Just remind me again about Ms Patel's Wonder Policy to deter migrants. How many have we sent to Rwanda? Something like a dozen?

    "Channel migrants: More than 25,000 cross to Kent so far in 2022"

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-62705913

    Though Truss will apparently sack Patel from the Cabinet and replace her
    with Braverman

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11151197/Home-Secretary-Priti-Patel-faces-axed-cabinet-Liz-Truss-staying-neutral-race.html
    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?

    And how close are we to getting that?

    Don't have nightmares, everyone.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 55,354
    edited August 2022
    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Just remind me again about Ms Patel's Wonder Policy to deter migrants. How many have we sent to Rwanda? Something like a dozen?

    "Channel migrants: More than 25,000 cross to Kent so far in 2022"

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-62705913

    Though Truss will apparently sack Patel from the Cabinet and replace her
    with Braverman

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11151197/Home-Secretary-Priti-Patel-faces-axed-cabinet-Liz-Truss-staying-neutral-race.html
    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
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,756
    edited August 2022

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Just remind me again about Ms Patel's Wonder Policy to deter migrants. How many have we sent to Rwanda? Something like a dozen?

    "Channel migrants: More than 25,000 cross to Kent so far in 2022"

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-62705913

    Though Truss will apparently sack Patel from the Cabinet and replace her
    with Braverman

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11151197/Home-Secretary-Priti-Patel-faces-axed-cabinet-Liz-Truss-staying-neutral-race.html
    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?

    And how close are we to getting that?

    Don't have nightmares, everyone.
    Johnson
    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.
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Just remind me again about Ms Patel's Wonder Policy to deter migrants. How many have we sent to Rwanda? Something like a dozen?

    "Channel migrants: More than 25,000 cross to Kent so far in 2022"

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-62705913

    Though Truss will apparently sack Patel from the Cabinet and replace her
    with Braverman

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11151197/Home-Secretary-Priti-Patel-faces-axed-cabinet-Liz-Truss-staying-neutral-race.html
    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
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 47,316
    Anyone else watching Kleo on Netflix ?
    Serious end of Cold War nostalgia, and pretty amusing. Great soundtrack.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,356
    edited August 2022
    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Just remind me again about Ms Patel's Wonder Policy to deter migrants. How many have we sent to Rwanda? Something like a dozen?

    "Channel migrants: More than 25,000 cross to Kent so far in 2022"

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-62705913

    Though Truss will apparently sack Patel from the Cabinet and replace her
    with Braverman

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11151197/Home-Secretary-Priti-Patel-faces-axed-cabinet-Liz-Truss-staying-neutral-race.html
    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?

    And how close are we to getting that?

    Don't have nightmares, everyone.
    Johnson
    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.
    Fabricant, Bill Cash, Peter Bone, Andrea Jenkyns, Francois too would be interesting
  • HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Just remind me again about Ms Patel's Wonder Policy to deter migrants. How many have we sent to Rwanda? Something like a dozen?

    "Channel migrants: More than 25,000 cross to Kent so far in 2022"

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-62705913

    Though Truss will apparently sack Patel from the Cabinet and replace her
    with Braverman

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11151197/Home-Secretary-Priti-Patel-faces-axed-cabinet-Liz-Truss-staying-neutral-race.html
    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?

    And how close are we to getting that?

    Don't have nightmares, everyone.
    Johnson
    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.
    Fabricant, Bill Cash, Peter Bone, Andrea Jenkyns too would be interested
    You are either trying to provoke or have become more detached from reality than you usually are
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,756
    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Just remind me again about Ms Patel's Wonder Policy to deter migrants. How many have we sent to Rwanda? Something like a dozen?

    "Channel migrants: More than 25,000 cross to Kent so far in 2022"

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-62705913

    Though Truss will apparently sack Patel from the Cabinet and replace her
    with Braverman

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11151197/Home-Secretary-Priti-Patel-faces-axed-cabinet-Liz-Truss-staying-neutral-race.html
    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?

    And how close are we to getting that?

    Don't have nightmares, everyone.
    Johnson
    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.
    Fabricant, Bill Cash, Peter Bone, Andrea Jenkyns, Francois too would be interesting
    In the sense my grandmother's people use it!
  • 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

  • londonpubmanlondonpubman Posts: 2,081

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Just remind me again about Ms Patel's Wonder Policy to deter migrants. How many have we sent to Rwanda? Something like a dozen?

    "Channel migrants: More than 25,000 cross to Kent so far in 2022"

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-62705913

    Though Truss will apparently sack Patel from the Cabinet and replace her
    with Braverman

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11151197/Home-Secretary-Priti-Patel-faces-axed-cabinet-Liz-Truss-staying-neutral-race.html
    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?

    And how close are we to getting that?

    Don't have nightmares, everyone.
    Johnson
    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.
    Fabricant, Bill Cash, Peter Bone, Andrea Jenkyns too would be interested
    You are either trying to provoke or have become more detached from reality than you usually are
    Could be CON no seats next time. Do you fancy voting Plaid Cymru as an alternative? 💙
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 49,002
    So:

    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?


  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,637
    A Victorian photograph of a ghost in a gas mask


  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 25,298
    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Just remind me again about Ms Patel's Wonder Policy to deter migrants. How many have we sent to Rwanda? Something like a dozen?

    "Channel migrants: More than 25,000 cross to Kent so far in 2022"

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-62705913

    Though Truss will apparently sack Patel from the Cabinet and replace her
    with Braverman

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11151197/Home-Secretary-Priti-Patel-faces-axed-cabinet-Liz-Truss-staying-neutral-race.html
    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?

    And how close are we to getting that?

    Don't have nightmares, everyone.
    Johnson
    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.
    Fabricant, Bill Cash, Peter Bone, Andrea Jenkyns, Francois too would be interesting
    Chope. Phillip Davies. Lee Anderson.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 19,093
    edited August 2022
    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Just remind me again about Ms Patel's Wonder Policy to deter migrants. How many have we sent to Rwanda? Something like a dozen?

    "Channel migrants: More than 25,000 cross to Kent so far in 2022"

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-62705913

    Though Truss will apparently sack Patel from the Cabinet and replace her
    with Braverman

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11151197/Home-Secretary-Priti-Patel-faces-axed-cabinet-Liz-Truss-staying-neutral-race.html
    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?

    And how close are we to getting that?

    Don't have nightmares, everyone.
    Johnson
    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.
    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?

    Damn! I forgot Fabricant!
  • HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Just remind me again about Ms Patel's Wonder Policy to deter migrants. How many have we sent to Rwanda? Something like a dozen?

    "Channel migrants: More than 25,000 cross to Kent so far in 2022"

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-62705913

    Though Truss will apparently sack Patel from the Cabinet and replace her
    with Braverman

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11151197/Home-Secretary-Priti-Patel-faces-axed-cabinet-Liz-Truss-staying-neutral-race.html
    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?

    And how close are we to getting that?

    Don't have nightmares, everyone.
    Johnson
    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.
    Fabricant, Bill Cash, Peter Bone, Andrea Jenkyns too would be interested
    You are either trying to provoke or have become more detached from reality than you usually are
    Could be CON no seats next time. Do you fancy voting Plaid Cymru as an alternative? 💙
    Short answer no, and if this carries on who knows where my vote will land
  • ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Just remind me again about Ms Patel's Wonder Policy to deter migrants. How many have we sent to Rwanda? Something like a dozen?

    "Channel migrants: More than 25,000 cross to Kent so far in 2022"

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-62705913

    Though Truss will apparently sack Patel from the Cabinet and replace her
    with Braverman

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11151197/Home-Secretary-Priti-Patel-faces-axed-cabinet-Liz-Truss-staying-neutral-race.html
    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?

    And how close are we to getting that?

    Don't have nightmares, everyone.
    Johnson
    Patel
    Truss
    Braverman
    Shapps
    Redwood
    Barclay
    Gove
    Williamson
    Cash
    Pincher
    Dehenna Davison
    Zahawi
    Raab
    Jenkyn
    Dorries
    Mogg

    Your boys took a hell of a beating!
This discussion has been closed.