JREF Homepage Swift Blog Events Calendar $1 Million Paranormal Challenge The Amaz!ng Meeting Useful Links Support Us
James Randi Educational Foundation JREF Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   JREF Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal
Click Here To Donate

Notices


Welcome to the JREF Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

Tags ufos

Closed Thread
Old 13th November 2009, 09:02 PM   #2801
Rramjet
Suspended
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,047
Originally Posted by Astrophotographer View Post
Hmm....this sounds very familiar. These descriptions sound a lot like the reports of stars and planets by various witnesses in Hendry's UFO Handbook (Sphere edition):

In other reports, however, witnesses claime they could see a shape even though they described the apparent size of the star as normal. Included among these shapes are: discs and discs with domes ("like two plates put together - case 332; "elongated, big as a distant plane"- case 377; "dome on top and bottom" - for one and a half hours in case 332), domes, "a plate with a hole in the center," vertically oriented small triangles, ovals, a football...even "teacups", "Mexican sombreros," and "bannanas as large as the moon, shrinking back down to a star." Peoplae have seen "spikes," "beams," "appendages," and sparkles shooting out in all directions from bright stars. In case 602, a woman kept in touch with a sympathetic controller for hours at the local airport as she watched stars forming shapes like the letters "V" and "M." The controller could not see the shapes, but a pilot in the area confirmed that there were unusual atmospheric conditions. In two cases, one star was seen to split up into two (and three) close lights and rejoin again. (Hendry - The UFO Handbook page 28)

Oh, but they were using binoculars:

Binoculars, working in conjunction with the atmosphere, created shapes out of star in many of the reports. IFO case 26 was based on a star viewed for forty minutes yet through binoculars the light looked like a "dome" shape, changing red, green, blue, and yellow. In case 51, a star seen in Des Moinse was turned into a "cup and saucer" through binoculars. A star that was watched for three solid hours became a mushroom shape. Venus became a "domed disc" and other stars became "pentagons," "cones," "triangles," and so on.... (Hendry 196-7)

Oh, but they were trained air traffic controllers:

Even FAA controllers are from from perfect. One was startled in case 838 by scintillating stars which he guessed at 12-20,000 feet. I was once told by a member of the FAA control at the Detroit metropolitan airport, "Do you know how many times we have cleared Venus to land?" (Hendry 102)

Just to let everyone know that the bright star Capella was low in the Northeast when this all began. Which remains of another case:

And another sighting - in Northern Michigan - on July 29 of last year, a pilot chased a brilliant multicolored object close to the horizon, and due north. He flew at 21,000 feet, followed the object for over a half-hour but could not gain on it. Radar operator [in the aircraft] reported contact with the object for about thirty seconds. And ground control interceptor station reported blips too [on its radar]. In this case, it seems certain that our harried pilot was pursuing [the star] Capella! Capella was at lower culmination, that is, at the lowest point of its swing around the pole just skirting the horizon. I have seen it at that position myself in Canada, and can vouch for the fact that its blue, yellow, and red twinkling can be spectacular. (Klass UFOs: The public decieved p. 78).

BTW, this was not Klass, it was Hynek writing for the Journal of the Optical Society of America in April of 1953.

As an additional note the bright planet Jupiter was also visible in the ENE.

Were some of the observations made of stars? It certainly sounds like it. Does it mean the entire case can be explained by stars? No, but one has to consider the idea that they may have played a role in starting the events.

I doubt RRamjet will even listen and proclaim all sorts of things that prove me wrong. However, I am just trying to point out possibilities to consider. More objective readers might pay attention to this information.
Oh yes, I have “listened” intently. I have followed your points through very carefully. As I MUST do so if I am to show how they are misguided or otherwise inapplicable in the case under examination.

And you know I actually find this tactic is somewhat amusing. When it comes to me presenting cases and hypothesising about what they might mean, the “debunkers” claim each case cannot be related to the others as a cohesive whole - that the evidence from each does not translate into an “overall” evidence base from which we might draw conclusions….yet when it comes to refuting cases, the “debunkers” invariable concatenate the conclusions from numbers of disparate case reports as if they do form a cohesive whole - from which they then draw conclusions! Hypocritical? No, I really don’t think they are sophisticated enough in their approach to even realise they are doing it.

The other thing about presenting the conclusions of such cases in such a manner is that it denies us the context and the evidence to enable a reasonable assessment as to whether the indicated cases CAN be related to the one under discussion (in this instance the Iranian UFO case). We are even denied the data to make a rational assessment as to whether the conclusions are even valid in the cases they supposedly represent.

All it amounts to in the end is a lot of unfounded assertion about cases we have no knowledge of and are provided with no details to even allow us to find out about them. Hendry could be making the conclusions up from whole cloth and proposing any old assertion about the cases in question and we have no way of verifying whether he is thus merely speculating or not. We are entitled to dismiss such observations as Hendry’s as mere unfounded assertion that is not supported by evidence.

Nevertheless, The first mass grouping of such unfounded assertion presented by Astrophotographer means, I presume, that people allegedly misidentify stars in various ways. How is this applicable to the Iranian UFO case? We have no idea. We don’t even know if any stars were visible on the night in question. There might have been a high cloud cover for example below which there was unlimited visibility (and according to debunker logic it is now up to them to show that this was not the case!).

But let us look at the case itself. For a start there were four separate (independent) calls to the control tower by civilians before the Pirouzi (the chief controller on the night) even began to take an interest. As each call came in - it naturally became increasingly unlikely that a mere “star” was being misidentified. Of course that does not rule the contention out.

But once Pirouzi Did take an interest what happened?
”It took him a minute or so of looking, but then he saw it. “I was amazed, flabbergasted. I didn’t know what to think. There definitely was a very strange object there in the sky right over Tehran. To the naked eye it looked like a large star low in the sky but without the twinkle.” However, through binoculars he could see many details of the shape and color. “It was rectangular in shape at a height of about 6,000 ft.” The right end was blue, the left end was blue, and in the middle was a red light making a circular motion. He thought that the object was probably cylindrical. “It reminded me of the flashing light of an ambulance, this one (red light) was not flashing. The circular motion of the red light was not continuous. Every 90 degrees or so, it paused for a fraction of a second.” He estimated that it took a second or two to make a complete circle. The object was also oscillating or tilting like a see-saw.”
Rectangular? I don’t believe that possibility was mentioned in Hendry’s “assertions”. Then what happened?
” “Suddenly it appeared at another position one mile further on.” That is, it was slowly traveling north but suddenly it disappeared and a few seconds later appeared at a further north location. Pirouzi also said it moved southward at times. “I could see it this time as bright as a sun. It was all yellow, like a star, but much bigger. Then it appeared to me to be like a starfish. I can’t be sure of the order of the colors but there were blue, orange, red and yellow lights.”
(http://www.brumac.8k.com/IranJetCase/)

Traveling over distances of miles? Changing locations? I don’t believe THAT was mentioned by Hendry either…

Oh but they were using binoculars… but MOVING stars? No, I contend that “moving” over distances of miles is not a reasonable thing to assume that binocular artefacts can produce.

Oh…and you mention a pilot chases a “star”. Interesting. Did the star chase him back, disable his communication and weapons systems, and then overfly him in full view of the control tower? I think not.

You even admit that the case cannot be accounted for by a mere misidentification of stars. I have considered the role they might have played and it appears on the evidence highly unlikely that stars contributed to the case in any way, shape, or form.

Once again you are trying to pass red herrings off as evidence against dolphins. It just does not work once we notice the difference in the described characteristics of each.

Perhaps you should just stick to the evidence in the case.
Rramjet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th November 2009, 09:06 PM   #2802
GeeMack
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Not Bandiagara
Posts: 7,241
Originally Posted by Rramjet View Post
Perhaps you should just stick to the evidence in the case.

Evidence of what? Aliens?
GeeMack is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th November 2009, 09:07 PM   #2803
Stray Cat
Philosopher
 
Stray Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: The Land That Time Forgot
Posts: 6,805
Originally Posted by Rramjet View Post
No, we have first hand accounts (eg; Jafari speaking at the National Press Club, Nov, 2007 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJydT3AZ370).
And only 30 years after the event then... plenty of time for him to have read and altered his story to fit with the UFOlogists interpretation (a distinct possibility overlooked by you).

Of course the fact that he was gaining celebrity status appearing on Coast to Coast, Whitley Strieber's Dreamland, The Anderson Cooper Show 360 Degrees and a host of other 'personal appearances (on sensationalist shows) wouldn't colour the story at all?
And don't put too much emphasis on the National Press Club, apparently it wasn't them who arranged anything, though it must have been seen as a master stroke to add an air of authority to the whole circus.
__________________
It's only my madness that stops me from going insane!
Stray Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th November 2009, 09:31 PM   #2804
Puddle Duck
Scholar
 
Puddle Duck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Baja Arizona
Posts: 74
Hello. I'm a new guy here and following the Tehran part of the thread. I have some time in the F-4 and was thinking of posting my thoughts on it from an aircrew point of view. I have hesitated from doing so due the the fact that this thread is getting so very long in the tooth, and that the message I typed, ended up being 5 1/2 pages in MS Word. I don't know if it would cast some light or just spread more heat on the discussion. If someone wants to see it, I'll check back tomorrow night and post it if desired.
Puddle Duck is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th November 2009, 09:52 PM   #2805
Belgian thought
Muse
 
Belgian thought's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 865
I am for it and look forward to it. Welcome by the way.
Belgian thought is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th November 2009, 10:31 PM   #2806
Rramjet
Suspended
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,047
Originally Posted by Puddle Duck View Post
Hello. I'm a new guy here and following the Tehran part of the thread. I have some time in the F-4 and was thinking of posting my thoughts on it from an aircrew point of view. I have hesitated from doing so due the the fact that this thread is getting so very long in the tooth, and that the message I typed, ended up being 5 1/2 pages in MS Word. I don't know if it would cast some light or just spread more heat on the discussion. If someone wants to see it, I'll check back tomorrow night and post it if desired.
It might be an interesting but it does need to be directly related to the topic under discussion. After all 5 1/2 pages is a lot of text! and there is a lot of F-4 "history" on the web which is easily accessible. There is an F-4 society, etc. Perhaps some reworking with some tight editing could bring the size down a bit? Not meaning to throw cold water on the idea, just worried about relevancy and size is all. Anyway, just my thoughts...
Rramjet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th November 2009, 11:17 PM   #2807
wollery
Protected by Samurai Hedgehogs!
 
wollery's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Land of Eternal Hope
Posts: 10,726
Originally Posted by Rramjet View Post
Oh yes, I have “listened” intently. I have followed your points through very carefully. As I MUST do so if I am to show how they are misguided or otherwise inapplicable in the case under examination.

And you know I actually find this tactic is somewhat amusing. When it comes to me presenting cases and hypothesising about what they might mean, the “debunkers” claim each case cannot be related to the others as a cohesive whole - that the evidence from each does not translate into an “overall” evidence base from which we might draw conclusions….yet when it comes to refuting cases, the “debunkers” invariable concatenate the conclusions from numbers of disparate case reports as if they do form a cohesive whole - from which they then draw conclusions! Hypocritical? No, I really don’t think they are sophisticated enough in their approach to even realise they are doing it.
And you do the exact opposite.

You want to treat all sightings as a whole mass providing evidence that individual cases cannot. But when cases are shown to be caused by misperceptions, or hoaxes, you want to ignore them, and treat them as though they aren't in the same class as the other UFO cases.

How is that not hypocritical?
__________________
"You're a sick SOB. You know that, Wollery?" - Roadtoad

"Just think how stupid the average person is, and then realize that half of them are even stupider!" --George Carlin
wollery is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th November 2009, 12:15 AM   #2808
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
 
Akhenaten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia
Posts: 28,716
Originally Posted by Puddle Duck View Post
Hello. I'm a new guy here and following the Tehran part of the thread. I have some time in the F-4 and was thinking of posting my thoughts on it from an aircrew point of view. I have hesitated from doing so due the the fact that this thread is getting so very long in the tooth, and that the message I typed, ended up being 5 1/2 pages in MS Word. I don't know if it would cast some light or just spread more heat on the discussion. If someone wants to see it, I'll check back tomorrow night and post it if desired.


Go for it. The only real evidence that's been presented so far is for blimps, and it's been done to death. If you have evidence that it gets hot in Iran, or that water is wet, you will likely win the argument here, as have many others. Sadly, Rramjet has yet to chalk up a victory.



Originally Posted by Rramjet View Post
It might be an interesting but it does need to be directly related to the topic under discussion. After all 5 1/2 pages is a lot of text! and there is a lot of F-4 "history" on the web which is easily accessible. There is an F-4 society, etc. Perhaps some reworking with some tight editing could bring the size down a bit? Not meaning to throw cold water on the idea, just worried about relevancy and size is all. Anyway, just my thoughts...


Where on Earth did you get the idea that the arguments you've presented here would qualify you to advise others on how to post effectively? Do you believe your techniques have been successful in making your case so far?
__________________


Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon

The Australasian Skeptics Forum
Akhenaten is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th November 2009, 01:20 AM   #2809
Jocce
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Uppsala, Sweden
Posts: 1,082
Originally Posted by Rramjet View Post
I contend the Iranian UFO is no mere UFO it is an “alien” UFO.

How do we know this?
“Pirouzi gave the binoculars to the others present and “they saw the object as a half-circle, in the same colors, blue, range, red and yellow.” The object seemed to change it’s shape. While Pirouzi over several minutes watched the apparent shape seemed to change from cylindrical, with blue ends and a red light going around the middle, to a fan like shape with drooping blades (“starfish” shaped) with fuzzy edges. The “blades” were dark orange near the hub changing to yellow at the tips. “The hub itself was made up of two concentric areas of color. There seemed to be a large green surface and then a smaller core which glowed like a piece of red hot coal.” One of the trainee witnesses compared it to an orange-red horseshoe with a blue area in the enclosed space of the horseshoe.”

(…)

Youssefi ordered him to close again to get a better view. This time, according to the Air Force teletype message (see below) of Lt. Col. Mooy, when he got to a range of about 25 nautical miles (about 29 statute miles; 1 nm = 6077 feet), he “lost all instrumentation and communications (UHF radio and intercom).” [Note: the intercom allows communication between the pilot in the front seat and the radar operator in the back seat of the aircraft.]

(…)


The plane tried to pursue the object while flying south of Tehran. According to Pirouzi the pilot reported that he couldn’t easily follow the track of the object because it would change its position very fast, appearing at one location and then suddenly at another location,

(…)

The pilot put the “pedal to the metal” and reached a speed of about Mach 2 (1,500 mph or 25 miles per minute) and still couldn’t catch it. He was flying toward the Afghanistan border, about 500 miles east of Tehran. Youssefi ordered him to return to Tehran if he couldn’t catch it, so he turned and headed back eastward. The object also reversed direction and began to chase the plane. In a short section of an audio tape recording (I presume made at the Air Traffic Control Center at Mehrabad) that was published in a local newspaper (see below), Jafari reported “something is coming at me from behind. It is 15 miles away…now ten miles…now five miles…It is level now…I think it is going to crash into me…It has just passed me by..missing me narrowly..” According to the newspaper report, “The disturbed voice of the pilot was clear on the tape. He then asked to be guided back to base.”

(…)

As the second jet attempted to close on the object it suddenly emitted a smaller bright object, and this object headed toward the jet. According to the Air Force teletype message, “The object and the pursuing F-4 continued a course that was south of Tehran when another brightly lighted object estimated to be 1/2 to 1/3 the apparent size of the moon, came out of the original object.

This second object headed straight toward the F-4 at a very fast pace. The pilot attempted to fire an AIM-9 (heat seeking) missile at the object but at that instant his weapons control panel went off and he lost all communications (UHS and intercom). At this point the pilot initiated a turn and a negative G dive to get away. As he turned the object fell in trail at what appeared to be about 3-4 nm. As he continued in his turn away from the primary object the second object went to the inside of his turn and then returned to the primary object for a perfect rejoin.”

(…)

. At this time the pilot was approaching the airport and Pirouzi and the others at the control tower saw this happening. According to Pirouzi, “I saw this light for the first time, though only for a few seconds” after it first appeared. As the plane went “screaming” over the airport Pirouzi and the others saw a dark rectangular form almost “sitting” on top of the jet. It was at about this time that the communications were lost, cut off in mid-sentence. The plane then went into a diving turn and it wasn’t until the plane and object were over Saveh, about 15 miles south of the airport, that communications were re-established. Then the pilot reported to Pirouzi that the second object had broken off the chase and was traveling within a few meters of the first. Then he reported that they had rejoined, as described above.

According to the Air Force teletype message, “Shortly after the second object joined up with the primary object another object appeared to come out of the other side of the primary object going straight down, at a great rate of speed. The F-4 crew had regained communications and the weapons control panel and watched the object approach the ground anticipating a large explosion. This object appeared to come to rest gently on the earth and cast a very bright light over an area of about 2-3 kilometers.” According to a newspaper report pilot estimated the size of this smaller object to be about 4.5 m in diameter.”
(http://www.brumac.8k.com/IranJetCase/)

So we have shape-shifting ability, the ability to disrupt F-4 communications and weapons systems, the ability to “jump” locations, to fly at speeds above Mach2, to flee and chase the F-4s, to split apart and rejoin, and to land part of itself…

Now all THAT together is totally outside the limits of ANY known natural or technological “object”.

And while the object itself is technically an “unknown”, the characteristics are certainly KNOWN. And they describe, I contend, something completely “alien” to the natural and technological environment. Thus it is an “alien” craft.

Moreover, it might not have been “occupied” (there is no evidence to say whether it was or not), but it certainly exhibited intelligent control!
And exactly how much of this is comming from an official source, i.e. the routing slip and how much is unconfirmed stuff from a reporter on the national enquirer?
__________________
And “I know what I saw” is and will always be evidence (Rramjet)
A claim can be evidence (Rramjet)
Anecdotes are evidence (ufology)
Jocce is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th November 2009, 03:23 AM   #2810
Rramjet
Suspended
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,047
Originally Posted by wollery View Post
And you do the exact opposite.

You want to treat all sightings as a whole mass providing evidence that individual cases cannot. But when cases are shown to be caused by misperceptions, or hoaxes, you want to ignore them, and treat them as though they aren't in the same class as the other UFO cases.

How is that not hypocritical?
Of course I ignore cases "shown to be caused by misperceptions, or hoaxes", for those cases are not UFOs!

I am only interested in cases that have been categorised as "unknown" (ie; UFO - such a Rogue River). The current case under discussion (The Iranian UFO) has already been claimed as "unidentified" by Stray Cat (in no uncertain terms using all capitals to do so no less) ...but others as yet seem to be unwilling to accept that assertion. So how do you see that case? UFO?
Rramjet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th November 2009, 03:42 AM   #2811
Rramjet
Suspended
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,047
Originally Posted by Jocce View Post
And exactly how much of this is comming from an official source, i.e. the routing slip and how much is unconfirmed stuff from a reporter on the national enquirer?
Well, actually...

As Mooy later explained to me, Iranian officials had invited the USAF section chief to send representatives to attend a “debriefing” of one of the two flight crews involved in the incident. Mooy, along with Colonel Jerry R. Johnson, were assigned to the task. The memorandum-for-the record, undated, reads as follows:” (Klass, P., J. UFOS, The Public Deceived. 1983 Prometheus Books. Ch14. p111)

NOTE: Bold emphasis mine (Rr).

So Klass actually SPOKE to Mooy to confirm the details of the case... Klass also confirms that Mooy wrote the memorandum... want any more? ('cos you know I got more...

Last edited by Rramjet; 14th November 2009 at 04:07 AM. Reason: page no. correction
Rramjet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th November 2009, 05:42 AM   #2812
Rramjet
Suspended
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,047
Originally Posted by Stray Cat View Post
And only 30 years after the event then... plenty of time for him to have read and altered his story to fit with the UFOlogists interpretation (a distinct possibility overlooked by you).

Of course the fact that he was gaining celebrity status appearing on Coast to Coast, Whitley Strieber's Dreamland, The Anderson Cooper Show 360 Degrees and a host of other 'personal appearances (on sensationalist shows) wouldn't colour the story at all?
And don't put too much emphasis on the National Press Club, apparently it wasn't them who arranged anything, though it must have been seen as a master stroke to add an air of authority to the whole circus.
Now of course he would NOT do that – for the simple reason that Mooy’s Memorandum-for the-Record is in the public domain and Jafari’s statements can be checked against that at any time – and we have none other than the authority of Phillip J. Klass to vouch for the authenticity of that memorandum (and that it was Mooy who wrote it and that Mooy was in the interview with Jafari)! And I can provide further quotes from Klass to support all of that if necessary.

You people really try and put the worst possible "spin" on everything whenever you possibly can. It is a deceitful tactic. Your post Stray Cat represents one of the worst examples of that very thing.

You impugn the reputation of Jafari - an honorable Iranian Airforce pilot - simple because he has accepted invitations to give his testimony in various media forums - forums that YOU assume somehow taint everyone who appears on them! This is not a rational or logical or even scientific way of advancing our knowledge of ANYTHING, let alone the topic under discussion.

If you are a true skeptic (rather than a mere "debunker") you would take the opportunity to rationally explore the evidence placed before you in an effort to gain whatever knowledge might be available.

Every true scientist is, almost by definition a skeptic. For the members of JREF posting in this thread to call themselves "skeptics", on the evidence of your post at least, is patently doing a disservice to the term and to scientists in general.
Rramjet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th November 2009, 05:50 AM   #2813
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
 
Akhenaten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia
Posts: 28,716
Originally Posted by Rramjet View Post

<snip>

If you are a true skeptic (rather than a mere "debunker") you would take the opportunity to rationally explore the evidence placed before you in an effort to gain whatever knowledge might be available.

Every true scientist is, almost by definition a skeptic. For the members of JREF posting in this thread to call themselves "skeptics", on the evidence of your post at least, is patently doing a disservice to the term and to scientists in general.


Your private definitions, straw men and faulty logic are letting you down yet again.
__________________


Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon

The Australasian Skeptics Forum
Akhenaten is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th November 2009, 05:51 AM   #2814
wollery
Protected by Samurai Hedgehogs!
 
wollery's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Land of Eternal Hope
Posts: 10,726
Originally Posted by Rramjet View Post
Of course I ignore cases "shown to be caused by misperceptions, or hoaxes", for those cases are not UFOs!

I am only interested in cases that have been categorised as "unknown" (ie; UFO - such a Rogue River). The current case under discussion (The Iranian UFO) has already been claimed as "unidentified" by Stray Cat (in no uncertain terms using all capitals to do so no less) ...but others as yet seem to be unwilling to accept that assertion. So how do you see that case? UFO?
Did you hear a whooshing sound as you wrote that response?

That was the point of my post whizzing over your head.
__________________
"You're a sick SOB. You know that, Wollery?" - Roadtoad

"Just think how stupid the average person is, and then realize that half of them are even stupider!" --George Carlin
wollery is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th November 2009, 06:14 AM   #2815
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Prosperity, AZ
Posts: 24,835
Originally Posted by Rramjet View Post
Every true scientist is, almost by definition a skeptic.
You provide a further nail in the coffin to your claim of being a scientist!
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th November 2009, 06:26 AM   #2816
Stray Cat
Philosopher
 
Stray Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: The Land That Time Forgot
Posts: 6,805
Originally Posted by Rramjet View Post
Now of course he would NOT do that – for the simple reason that Mooy’s Memorandum-for the-Record is in the public domain and Jafari’s statements can be checked against that at any time – and we have none other than the authority of Phillip J. Klass to vouch for the authenticity of that memorandum (and that it was Mooy who wrote it and that Mooy was in the interview with Jafari)! And I can provide further quotes from Klass to support all of that if necessary.
Of course there's something in the public domain... that is my point.
How do you know that what is in the public domain was actually what happened in a case were confusion played such a prominent part in an event that lasted more than an hour and a half and still resulted in the object not being identified. And from what I read, the provenance of who said what to who seems be very unclear with all sorts of confusions regarding the memorandum, routing slip etc. with the added confusion of two anonymous sources and a guy from the National Enquirer.

Originally Posted by Rramjet View Post
You people really try and put the worst possible "spin" on everything whenever you possibly can. It is a deceitful tactic. Your post Stray Cat represents one of the worst examples of that very thing.
No actually, it presents a possibility. And the only reason I present that possibility is because I have had more experience of it from investigating UFO reports than I have had in finding out that everyone was reported accurately. Again, I am not saying it DID happen, only that I don't think it had been ruled out as a possibility.

Originally Posted by Rramjet View Post
You impugn the reputation of Jafari - an honorable Iranian Airforce pilot - simple because he has accepted invitations to give his testimony in various media forums - forums that YOU assume somehow taint everyone who appears on them! This is not a rational or logical or even scientific way of advancing our knowledge of ANYTHING, let alone the topic under discussion.
No, a rational and logical way to advance knowledge is to actually watch and listen to some of those shows and see the amount of 'similarly' well documented, well researched subjects get covered. I would have thought that if there were really any knowledge to advance in relation to Jafari's testimony, he may have appeared on say the Science channel, but obviously 'the man' don't want him upsetting the applecart

Originally Posted by Rramjet View Post
If you are a true skeptic (rather than a mere "debunker") you would take the opportunity to rationally explore the evidence placed before you in an effort to gain whatever knowledge might be available.
I have... conclusion is still UNIDENTIFIED.
My scepticism doesn't over reach toward a conclusion from the information available, that I believe is partly down to a lack of confidence in the accuracy of the data.

Originally Posted by Rramjet View Post
Every true scientist is, almost by definition a skeptic. For the members of JREF posting in this thread to call themselves "skeptics", on the evidence of your post at least, is patently doing a disservice to the term and to scientists in general.
Why is presenting possibilities not scientific?
Surely one aspect of the peer review process is to allow other people to suggest possible faults in the idea being reviewed?
__________________
It's only my madness that stops me from going insane!

Last edited by Stray Cat; 14th November 2009 at 06:28 AM.
Stray Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th November 2009, 09:08 AM   #2817
Access Denied
Critical Thinker
 
Access Denied's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: [redacted]
Posts: 338
Originally Posted by Rramjet View Post
And I can provide further quotes from Klass to support all of that if necessary.
Then by all means do so. Mooy may very well have sat in on the “debriefing” but we still haven’t seen a copy of this memo in full from an official source and the "Mooy as the source of the teletype" account contradicts McKenzie’s and Pratt’s account contradicts Jafari’s…

Jafari isn’t listed as one of the pilots by Pratt and if the memo is undated as Klass points out, how can we be sure when it was actually written and where does Mooy actually claim he wrote the teletype that McKenize claims he wrote? There are some differences between the teletype and the memo so it would seem we have a bit of a chicken and the egg problem here…

Originally Posted by Puddle Duck View Post
Hello. I'm a new guy here and following the Tehran part of the thread. I have some time in the F-4 and was thinking of posting my thoughts on it from an aircrew point of view. I have hesitated from doing so due the the fact that this thread is getting so very long in the tooth, and that the message I typed, ended up being 5 1/2 pages in MS Word. I don't know if it would cast some light or just spread more heat on the discussion. If someone wants to see it, I'll check back tomorrow night and post it if desired.
Welcome to JREF Puddle Duck and by all means let it fly… looking forward to hearing your perspective on this matter.

Last edited by Access Denied; 14th November 2009 at 09:30 AM. Reason: clarification
Access Denied is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th November 2009, 12:13 PM   #2818
Astrophotographer
Graduate Poster
 
Astrophotographer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Manchester, NH
Posts: 1,892
Originally Posted by Rramjet View Post
Rectangular? I don’t believe that possibility was mentioned in Hendry’s “assertions”. Then what happened?.
I love your term "assertions". This is actual data from witnesses describing stars. It is a control group which one can compare UFO descriptions. He describes multiple shapes, letter shapes, etc. with such a myriad of shapes being seen, it is obvious that the individual's perception plays a role.

Originally Posted by Rramjet View Post
” “Suddenly it appeared at another position one mile further on.” That is, it was slowly traveling north but suddenly it disappeared and a few seconds later appeared at a further north location. Pirouzi also said it moved southward at times. “I could see it this time as bright as a sun. It was all yellow, like a star, but much bigger. Then it appeared to me to be like a starfish. I can’t be sure of the order of the colors but there were blue, orange, red and yellow lights.”
Let's see what Hendry had to say about apparent motion of stars:

Witnesses have "seen" stars:

***dart up and down (many cases)
***wiggle from side to side (many cases)
***zigzag
***execute loops and figure eights (many cases)
***drift "like a pendulum" - cases 450 and 1,086
***rise like a "leaf falling up" for two hours - case 329
***ascend and descend in steps (one case)
***meander in square patterns---even in an A shape
(Hendry 26)

Pages 94-96 talk about various cases where witnesses statements describe what he lists above. I can add my various experiences associated with this subject but I am sure you will ignore them.

The witness describes it moving north and then south. The distances of miles are just completely worthless. Without azimuth readings, one can not make any justification about how far it drifted either way.

Originally Posted by Rramjet View Post
Oh but they were using binoculars… but MOVING stars? No, I contend that “moving” over distances of miles is not a reasonable thing to assume that binocular artefacts can produce.

Oh…and you mention a pilot chases a “star”. Interesting. Did the star chase him back, disable his communication and weapons systems, and then overfly him in full view of the control tower? I think not.

You even admit that the case cannot be accounted for by a mere misidentification of stars. I have considered the role they might have played and it appears on the evidence highly unlikely that stars contributed to the case in any way, shape, or form.

Once again you are trying to pass red herrings off as evidence against dolphins. It just does not work once we notice the difference in the described characteristics of each.

Perhaps you should just stick to the evidence in the case.
I mentioned the binocular issue at length in the previous post and in another when discussing Rogue river. Was the apparent motion due to the user not holding the binoculars steady or him shifting his attention between two objects. BTW, what was the weather that night. Could clouds have obscurred the "UFO" for a few minutes and then it reappeared? This appearance and disappearance could give the impression of moving north and then south again.

Your reference to "red herrings" is another effort of you to avoid upleasant issues associated with the testimony of the principle witnesses. Apparently you are not interested in any of the human issues associated with UFO sightings. It is you who appears to be ignoring evidence. BTW, I never said a star disabled the aircraft or overflew the tower. However, I keep asking for the records associated with the aircraft maintenance and problems. You can't produce them and they probably don't exist. However, under combat conditions, machines fail and it would only take some faulty wiring, bad solder joints, loose circuit breaker, etc to produce the problems encountered by the plane while it was conducting maneuvers.

In the Hynek article, I wonder why the star was tracked on radar and the pilot kept trying to pursue the star? This is not the only case. Something similar was found to have happened in the Lakenheath 1957 encounter. Dr. David Clarke discovered this when interviewing one of the pilots who stated he was to pursue a UFO that had been picked up on radar. After a few minutes of pursuit, he realized it was just a star. There was something similar in the Condon report where a pilot was asked to pursue Venus. So, pilots have been asked by ground controllers to pursue stars and have pursued stars before. That does not mean this happened here but it certainly can not be dismissed with a wave of the hand as you tend to do.

Last edited by Astrophotographer; 14th November 2009 at 12:37 PM.
Astrophotographer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th November 2009, 12:35 PM   #2819
Astrophotographer
Graduate Poster
 
Astrophotographer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Manchester, NH
Posts: 1,892
Originally Posted by Puddle Duck View Post
Hello. I'm a new guy here and following the Tehran part of the thread. I have some time in the F-4 and was thinking of posting my thoughts on it from an aircrew point of view. I have hesitated from doing so due the the fact that this thread is getting so very long in the tooth, and that the message I typed, ended up being 5 1/2 pages in MS Word. I don't know if it would cast some light or just spread more heat on the discussion. If someone wants to see it, I'll check back tomorrow night and post it if desired.
By all means do. My father was an AO for twenty-plus (he was disappointed I chose Subs for my career path) and had some experience with F-4's in the later part of his career aboard the Independence (late 1960s). Some of his stories were always interesting as I am sure yours are. I look forward to any light you can shed on the subject.
Astrophotographer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th November 2009, 03:02 PM   #2820
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
tsig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 32,903
Originally Posted by Rramjet View Post
Well, actually...

As Mooy later explained to me, Iranian officials had invited the USAF section chief to send representatives to attend a “debriefing” of one of the two flight crews involved in the incident. Mooy, along with Colonel Jerry R. Johnson, were assigned to the task. The memorandum-for-the record, undated, reads as follows:” (Klass, P., J. UFOS, The Public Deceived. 1983 Prometheus Books. Ch14. p111)

NOTE: Bold emphasis mine (Rr).

So Klass actually SPOKE to Mooy to confirm the details of the case... Klass also confirms that Mooy wrote the memorandum... want any more? ('cos you know I got more...
How about the alien ship's log signed by the commander.
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th November 2009, 04:17 PM   #2821
Rramjet
Suspended
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,047
Originally Posted by Rramjet
Now of course he would NOT do that – for the simple reason that Mooy’s Memorandum-for the-Record is in the public domain and Jafari’s statements can be checked against that at any time – and we have none other than the authority of Phillip J. Klass to vouch for the authenticity of that memorandum (and that it was Mooy who wrote it and that Mooy was in the interview with Jafari)! And I can provide further quotes from Klass to support all of that if necessary.

Originally Posted by Stray Cat View Post
Of course there's something in the public domain... that is my point.
How do you know that what is in the public domain was actually what happened in a case were confusion played such a prominent part in an event that lasted more than an hour and a half and still resulted in the object not being identified. And from what I read, the provenance of who said what to who seems be very unclear with all sorts of confusions regarding the memorandum, routing slip etc. with the added confusion of two anonymous sources and a guy from the National Enquirer.
And also…
Originally Posted by Access Denied View Post
Then by all means do so. Mooy may very well have sat in on the “debriefing” but we still haven’t seen a copy of this memo in full from an official source and the "Mooy as the source of the teletype" account contradicts McKenzie’s and Pratt’s account contradicts Jafari’s…

Jafari isn’t listed as one of the pilots by Pratt and if the memo is undated as Klass points out, how can we be sure when it was actually written and where does Mooy actually claim he wrote the teletype that McKenize claims he wrote? There are some differences between the teletype and the memo so it would seem we have a bit of a chicken and the egg problem here…
What is in the public domain is not merely “something”. There are a number of authenticated documents in the public domain.

1. The initial Memorandum-for-the-Record written by Mooy. This can be found in Klass, P., J. UFOS, The Public Deceived. 1983 Prometheus Books (pp. 111-113)

Mooy sat in on the “debriefing” of the aircrew of the second F-4 (Jafari was the pilot) and had access to a report of the “debriefing of the aircrew of the first F-4.

2. The “Routing Slip” written by McKenzie (with the attached assessment written later by Evans – a DIA intelligence analyst) which followed Mooy’s Memorandum almost word for word. This can be found at (http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_file...p_ufo_iran.pdf)

Evan’s assessment of the case included that the information was “confirmed by other sources” and of “high” value.

The provenance here is simply NOT in question. For example Klass states “On October 2, 1977, I telephoned Mooy, now a full colonel who had been reassigned back to the States, and he supplied a little useful background.” (p.117) Earlier in this same document Klass had indicated that he had also directly spoken to Mooy about the provenance of the information in (what has become known as) the Routing Slip.

To further support that we have the Press Club testimony of Jafari (the pilot of the second F-4). In it he confirms the substantive details of the case as well as the fact that Mooy was in the interview with him. This can be found at (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJydT3AZ370)

We also have Bob Pratt (National Enquirer) who talked to McKenzie and Evans about the case. Pratt asked Mckenzie who his source for the “Routing Slip” was and McKenzie prevaricated, trying to throw Pratt of the trail with misinformation (such as: "Well, we read the newspapers, we talked to various people around town, other attachés. It was really quite a topic of conversa¬tion for three or four days.”) Now we KNOW that Mooy was the source (confirmed by Klass in direct conversation with Mooy), and thus we KNOW that McKenzie was providing “misleading” information to Pratt about his source.

When Pratt asked Evan’s about the case:
“We had several other messages that someone would attribute to UFOs," said Major Evans. "I didn't pay much attention to them, but I felt this particular case was very interesting. Here we had a case where we had a visual sighting from three different locations, three different angles, by highly qualified people and they were confirmed by radar from three different points.

"The electromagnetic effects were very interesting to me as an electronic warfare officer, and the fact that this thing was so highly maneuverable impressed me quite a bit. As an electronic warfare officer, I would love to go into combat with the capability of turning off my opponent's weapon system panel at will, and to be able to figure out when he's going to turn it on, and to cut off his communications.”
(http://www.cohenufo.org/iran.htm)

Pratt also interviewed Hossain Pirouzi, the chief supervisor of the air-traffic control tower on the night in question. This interview also confirmed the details of the case and provided much extra information as well. We also have other documentary comments from a number of civilian as well as military sources - but at this point it must be noted (in no uncertain terms) that the provenance of the information concerning the case is NOT in question. Moreover, there is no inconsistency between the details of the case as presented by the various sources.

Your continued efforts, Stray Cat, to cast doubt in this area are again an example of the “debunking” mentality at work rather than a true scientific appraisal of the evidence. For example you imply that just because Pratt was a reporter for the National Enquirer, we should disbelieve the testimony of the witnesses he interviewed. However, if he misquoted or otherwise distorted the statements of the interviewees, those interviewees had ample time to dispute Pratt’s reporting. NONE of the interviewee statements have been disputed in any way, either by the interviewees or by anyone else for that matter (until this forum…huh!).

You go on to imply that “confusion played a prominent part” in the case. This is utterly disingenuous. First, there is NO confusion about the details of the case. All the eyewitnesses described the events in detail and each is consistent with the other. There may have been “confusion” about what the object WAS… but that is only because they could not identify it! They were certainly able to describe the objects abilities and characteristics in precise detail. Second there is NO confusion about the sources of information that has come into he public domain. That has been described and verified in the above. So it is simply disingenuous (to be polite) of you to imply that confusion played a “prominent” role in the case. This is simply not correct.

The above then confirms MY assessment:

Originally Posted by Rramjet
You people really try and put the worst possible "spin" on everything whenever you possibly can. It is a deceitful tactic. Your post Stray Cat represents one of the worst examples of that very thing.

Originally Posted by Stray Cat View Post
No actually, it presents a possibility. And the only reason I present that possibility is because I have had more experience of it from investigating UFO reports than I have had in finding out that everyone was reported accurately. Again, I am not saying it DID happen, only that I don't think it had been ruled out as a possibility.
Your experience counts for nothing then because you have simply failed to investigate the details of the case. If you had investigated, then you would have found the same information available as I have done. You simply carry out NO investigation – preffering instead to try and cast confusion and doubt about the case instead of conducting a rational, scientific analysis of the evidence on the record. My assessment of your tactics (as above) stand.

Originally Posted by Rramjet
You impugn the reputation of Jafari - an honorable Iranian Airforce pilot - simple because he has accepted invitations to give his testimony in various media forums - forums that YOU assume somehow taint everyone who appears on them! This is not a rational or logical or even scientific way of advancing our knowledge of ANYTHING, let alone the topic under discussion.

Originally Posted by Stray Cat View Post
No, a rational and logical way to advance knowledge is to actually watch and listen to some of those shows and see the amount of 'similarly' well documented, well researched subjects get covered. I would have thought that if there were really any knowledge to advance in relation to Jafari's testimony, he may have appeared on say the Science channel, but obviously 'the man' don't want him upsetting the applecart
I am sure if the “Science channel” had invited him, Jafari would have been happy to accept. Again my assessment of your “dirty” tactics stands. You insinuate negative conclusions without a shred of evidence to support them. Just because the “shows” you mention may not have a “pristine” reputation according to your standards, does not mean that when a person appears on them to provide testimony he is automatically disqualified as legitimate – especially when that testimony is so easily verified as Jafari’s is. You simply need to refer to the evidence in the case and quit making irrational, illogical, unscientific and unfounded assertions.

Originally Posted by Rramjet
If you are a true skeptic (rather than a mere "debunker") you would take the opportunity to rationally explore the evidence placed before you in an effort to gain whatever knowledge might be available.

Originally Posted by Stray Cat View Post
I have... conclusion is still UNIDENTIFIED.
My scepticism doesn't over reach toward a conclusion from the information available, that I believe is partly down to a lack of confidence in the accuracy of the data.
I have just demonstrated how you “over reach”. There is absolutely NO reason to have a “lack of confidence” in the data on the basis of the unfounded assertions you have presented.

Originally Posted by Rramjet
Every true scientist is, almost by definition a skeptic. For the members of JREF posting in this thread to call themselves "skeptics", on the evidence of your post at least, is patently doing a disservice to the term and to scientists in general.

Originally Posted by Stray Cat View Post
Why is presenting possibilities not scientific?
Surely one aspect of the peer review process is to allow other people to suggest possible faults in the idea being reviewed?
Presenting possibilities that are easily refuted by the evidence IS unscientific – unless you have compelling counter-evidence – which of course you do not. And certainly, the peer review process has comprehensively refuted your assertions on the matter.
Rramjet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th November 2009, 04:24 PM   #2822
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
 
Akhenaten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia
Posts: 28,716
Originally Posted by tsig View Post
How about the alien ship's log signed by the commander.


__________________


Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon

The Australasian Skeptics Forum
Akhenaten is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th November 2009, 04:34 PM   #2823
Audible Click
The gap in the plot
 
Audible Click's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: BFE
Posts: 3,576
Oddly enough, I understand that message perfectly.
__________________
"Thank you, darling heart.
Love you." Baba
Australasian Skeptics Forum
Audible Click is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th November 2009, 04:44 PM   #2824
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
 
Akhenaten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia
Posts: 28,716
I thought the bit about 'retarded humans' was a bit gratuitous. Argumentum ad hominid and all.
__________________


Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon

The Australasian Skeptics Forum
Akhenaten is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th November 2009, 04:45 PM   #2825
Audible Click
The gap in the plot
 
Audible Click's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: BFE
Posts: 3,576
Well yes, but what else can they think after viewing this thread?
__________________
"Thank you, darling heart.
Love you." Baba
Australasian Skeptics Forum
Audible Click is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th November 2009, 05:09 PM   #2826
Puddle Duck
Scholar
 
Puddle Duck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Baja Arizona
Posts: 74
Well here it is. I don’t know if it will be light or heat. I do apologize for the length of this.

The story I’m using is from THE IRANIAN JET UFO CHASE reference early in the thread and appears to be written by someone named Bruce Maccabee, that was taken from a published story by Bob Pratt ( who was an apparent UFO investigator) from the National Enquirer, plus a partial copy of a telex and a Tehran newspaper article. I’ve never heard of either of the gentlemen.

. The whole article is a bloody mess. From the published aircrew debrief, if I had tried that on my intel debriefer, I, my backseater, and the debriefer would have shortly been assigned to Thule AFB, handing out condoms to the troops. Assuming that what was written was at least semi-true, there has to be a lot more to those debriefs than what is here. So I’ll try to put together a somewhat logical flow and make a few comments and questions. I am not going to try to identify the bogey, because there just isn’t enough info and I have no expertise there.

The whole narrative as far as the aircraft side is just, well, strange. And a lot wrong. I would love to listen to the tower tapes. They were in English if Iran at the time was part of ICAO, and I’m almost sure they were and still are. If either of the birds were talking to a military GCI site, it could be either in English or Farsi. I don’t know which. I have worked with Norwegian, Dutch, German and Italian GCI sites, and they were all in English. I would also love to see the scope film of the 2nd bird if it ever existed, to see what was going on with the radar.

The scrambled birds were obviously loaded for air-to-air, which meant that they were carrying wing fuel tanks, four radar missiles almost certainly AIM-7 Sparrows in the semi-submerged wells, four AIM-9 Sidewinders on the inboard pylons and a gun. If they were E models, the gun was internal, if D models, the gun was in a pod mounted on the centerline. This is the universal load for an air-to-air F-4. Especially note the wing tanks. They will be of import later.

Using the DOC of the article that was referenced (Iranian Jet Case.doc) , Page 2. Henry who was at Shahroki Air Field stated that it was rare for jets to take off full speed at night with afterburner. WRONG! Shahroki is at 5600 feet elevation, a very high altitude fighter field and probably density altitudes of over 8,000 ft would be common in the summer. F-4s always use full burner and take off at “full speed”, whatever that means.. I only used a military power take off a couple of times and those were on FCFs (functional test flights) looking for something specific.

Page 6, para 2. The statement of a beeper on 121.12 Mz looks like either a typo or some one writing that was ignorant of that item. Beepers xmit on 121.5 in VHF and 243.0 Mz in UHF. Every ICAO and FAA tower monitors these frequencies. Since the tower appeared to not have heard it, the beeper was away from it and in a radio shadow of the tower. Also, beepers don’t normally just fall out of planes. Possible, but ultra improbable. Pure conjecture;: some one was playing with a light plane beeper. In any case, I don’t see any connection.

I don’t know how close the Elburz mtns are to Tehran; Babolsar at 85-90 miles away, would not have been able to paint anything over Tehran less than about 18k ft. MSL, Shaharoki at 135-140 miles away should be able to see something over about 4k ft. AGL with several caveats. I’m not any type of expert on this.

Now to F-4 #1.Pages 8-10
. The moon phase was an early waxing crescent with moonrise a little after 0100. The thin crescent of the moon had been only up for an hour when the interactions started so it was almost as dark as no moon.. The moon won’t be overhead until a little past 0700.The visibility at altitude over the desert should be unlimited. The only problem is that you can’t see anything in the dark. He launched at 0130 from Shahroki heading northeast to intercept 40 miles north ot Tehran, so he was traveling 150 miles. He was probably told this was an ID pass, he probably climbed to about 20k ft MSL till he got to within 50-40 miles of the bogey, then descended. He probable was traveling around 420 knots, since that is a good all round combat speed for an F-4. It gets you where you’re going fairly quickly without using too much fuel. It would take about 22 minutes at that speed to arrive. The story does not mention any of this of course.

Quote:
“It appeared to now be as high as 12,000 ft”
. Was this from the aircrew or from the tower chief? If the aircrew, the bogey would be at 12k MSL, if from the tower, it would be at 16k MSL and a wild guess at best.

Quote:
“he could see it from 70 miles away”
On a dark night like this, I see no problem seeing a light at that distance over a desert, especially if it is aimed in his direction and at altitude. The only thing that would cut visibility short of an inversion layer, would be light pollution and airborne crud in the vicinity of the city.

Quote:
“he approached at more than the speed of sound”
Why? This was just an ID pass. There was no critical time factor.

Quote:
“the object sped up to stay ahead”
How far was he from the bogey when it did this? How far ahead did it stay? What direction did they go? Did they stay at 12k feet or change altitude?

Quote:
“while the jet was about 150 miles from Tehran, the object appeared over the city again, having beaten the jet back to the city”
Well apparently they climbed out, then went east about 200 miles and turned around. The time for this would be around a minimum of 50 minutes up to about an hour. The bogey is able to do 10,000 knots down in a thick atmosphere or can teleport itself?

Quote:
““….his engines were working normally, the lights on the instrument panel were working but all his navigation aids were out…”, when he got to a range of about 25 nautical miles, he “lost all instrumentation and communications (UHF radio and intercom).”
So the bogey is keeping him 25 miles or better, and if he gets closer he gets jammed With respect to the engines, there should be no problem with their working, as the fuel tanks have hydraulic pumps as well as electrical, and the throttle connections are mechanical. Think of a diesel engine.

Quote:
“…” Youssefi ordered him to close again to get a better view”
Now the bogey loiters around Tehran for about a half hour until #1 gets back? I’m thinking that #2 got to play for a while, but I don’t know. There is some time missing.

This is about the right time for him to declare bingo and go home. He has been mucking around at fairly high powers setting for roughly an hour-40 to two hours. The big chase must have been fairly high to get over the mountains around Tehran, so he was probably above 20k altitude. If he had been down low, he would have had to recover at Mehrebad, and sucking fumes. #2 was on station by now.

Quote:
“The jet-UFO chase just described occurred over a period of about 10 minutes”
Whoa Nelly, how does an hour and a half +, get compressed to about 10 minutes, since there was a long distance chase? If it was 10 minutes, the long distance chase didn’t happen.


And so to F-4 #2 Pages 10-13
After #1 was airborne for 10 minutes, the General launched #2, so he got off the ground about 0150, when #1 is first getting entangled with the bogey. Why is a Colonel sitting alert? Colonels don’t sit alert. He should be pushing mountains of paper, unless he has to fill a square once a year or something.

#2 heads toward Tehran. #2 and #1 had to be talking to each other as well as to the tower. Meanwhile #1 is chasing the bogey east at about the same speed and is about 125 miles ahead of #2. #2 gets a little beyond Tehran (probably SE of town) about the time the bogey and #1 turn around, and is about 50-70 miles east of there when the bogey magically appears back over Tehran. So what does he do until #1 gets back to Tehran in about 20-25 minutes, gets jammed and goes home? The narration doesn’t say. It immediately jumps into #2’s playtime as though #1 wasn’t around.. The bogey starts jinking around and they both end up in a circle chase (this implies a distance of less than about two miles, probably less than one mile). This is apparently south of Tehran. Then the bogey extends? #2 gets a lock at about 25 miles with a positive delta V, so the bogey speeds up until they are back to 25 miles. It seems that the bogey is comfortable beyond 25 miles but gets really shy inside that. The writer seems amazed that the lock held for 48 secs. (Barring countermeasures, the radar will hold lock on a target as long as the target stays in front and within the radar’s limits, and does not get lost in any clutter.) They then turn east and push up the speed. Before this they were maybe close enough to Tehran to see the shape against the background city lights, but now it gets dark again..

Quote:
” The pilot put the “pedal to the metal” and reached a speed of about Mach 2.2 (1,500 mph or 25 miles per minute) and still couldn’t catch it”
“pedal to the metal - (not an aviating term; the writer is using his creative writing)
Mach 2? MACH 2??? I call major B.S. This can’t be done! Remember the external fuel tanks? With them and the ordnance hanging in the breeze, and at 25-30k ft. straight & level, even a great D model might get M-1.3 and an E model about .1 more. The drag of the tanks is the major limiting factor. Someone is dreaming.

Quote:
“Youssefi ordered him to return to Tehran if he couldn’t catch it, so he turned and headed back eastward. The object also reversed direction and began to chase the plane.”
Perhaps he meant westward. It seemed that they were heading east at the time. There is not enough info to be sure though.

Quote:
“ Jafari reported “something is coming at me from behind. It is 15 miles away…now ten miles…now five miles…It is level now…I think it is going to crash into me…It has just passed me by…missing me narrowly..”
There are a lot of ellipsi. What is missing? They are still out east of Tehran and in the dark, only a thin crescent moon. He is saying that the bogey is chasing him and he is giving ranges every 5 miles from 15. The only way he can see the bogey is by the supposed lights on it. He can’t see an unlit object at all. Even under a full moon, he would have to be within a mile or so to see a shape. To be able to put an eyeball on it assuming it is about co-altitude, he has to turn enough to put it at his 5 or 7 o’clock. There is no depth perception out that far, he can’t radar paint it and he has absolutely no idea how far away it is. (An aside- since most of the chases were out to the east, why didn’t the General have Babolsar scramble one or two? They were a lot closer to the action. I assume that he was keeping a close eye on all this.}

They apparently get back to somewhere near town and south of it, where he turns into the bogey. At this time, he has been airborne over an hour at fairly high power settings and has been using burner for at least 5 min..maybe as much as 15 during his chase. He is not going to punch off his tanks unless he has permission from the General, and there is nothing in the narration that says that he did. By this time he is starting to get low on fuel.

Quote:
“The object and the pursuing F-4 continued a course that was south of Tehran when another brightly lighted object estimated to be 1/2 to 1/3 the apparent size of the moon, came out of the original object.
This second object headed straight toward the F-4 at a very fast pace. The pilot attempted to fire an AIM-9 (heat seeking) missile at the object but at that instant his weapons control panel went off and he lost all communications (UHS and intercom). At this point the pilot initiated a turn and a negative G dive to get away. As he turned the object fell in trail at what appeared to be about 3-4 nm. As he continued in his turn away from the primary object the second object went to the inside of his turn and then returned to the primary object for a perfect rejoin”
OK, the bogey shoots what appears to be a missile, but the size estimation is extremely iffy as there is not much moonlight and the description of lit sounds like a propulsion device . How far away was the bogey at this time? He had to be very close to see the launch, but had to be at a long range for the missile to fall into trail at 3-4 miles. It appears that he is somewhere around the magic 25 mile difference, but at that distance, he won’t see a launch. He turns away and pushes over? He has to be far enough away to attempt to get the missile to his beam so as to dodge it, but then he pushes over. That would just solve the firing solution for the missile, because he just straightened out his flight path. . As he turns away, he should be inverted and pulling to break the solution, not doing a push over.

Quote:
“. The pilot reported to Pirouzi that the secondary object started heading toward the airplane. At this time the pilot was approaching the airport and Pirouzi and the others at the control tower saw this happening. According to Pirouzi, “I saw this light for the first time, though only for a few seconds” after it first appeared. As the plane went “screaming” over the airport Pirouzi and the others saw a dark rectangular form almost “sitting” on top of the jet. It was at about this time that the communications were lost, cut off in mid-sentence. The plane then went into a diving turn and it wasn’t until the plane and object were over Saveh, about 15 miles south of the airport, that communications were re-established. Then the pilot reported to Pirouzi that the second object had broken off the chase and was traveling within a few meters of the first. Then he reported that they had rejoined, as described above.
“ Now according to the tower, this happened directly over the tower and that the missile chasing #2 was within about a hundred feet of the plane. But the pilot reports it is 3-4 miles behind him. The pilot then reports that the missile goes back to the bogey and formates within a few meters of it. To see this, #2 has to be within about a couple thousand feet of the bogey if they are still over the city, and if away from the city, within about two hundred feet. Remember there is only a sliver moon (probably about 30-40 degrees or so up by now, and it is still dark out away from the city lights. Did the bogey haul up close to #2? Previously, the bogey had been keeping both birds at about 25 miles. How high were they above the field, a thousand feet or so or around 20k ft area? For the tower to see both machines they had to be low but in the next event that immediately followed, they were at 26k feet. More high power maneuvering. By this time they had to be sucking fumes.

Quote:
“The Air Force message continues, “The crew descended from their altitude of 26,000 ft to 15,000 ft and continued to observe and mark the object’s position. They had some difficulty in adjusting their night visibility for landing. “ [Note: this could be evidence of the great brightness of the object; their night vision problem would be like looking at the bright full moon for many seconds or a minute and then trying to see stars in the dark sky at a distance away from the moon.] “So, after orbiting Mehrebad a few times they went out for a straight-in landing. There was a lot of interference in the UHF and each time they passed through a magnetic bearing of 150 deg from Mehrebad they lost their communications (UHF and intercom) and the INS [inertial navigation system] fluctuated from 30 to 50 degrees. The one civil airliner that was approaching Mehrebad during this same time experienced communications failure in the same vicinity (Kilo Zulu) but did not report seeing anything.”
We now have the third gizmo drop to the ground and illuminate the area. This was close to the refinery. There is no indication of what was found the next day on the helicopter trip for either the flare or the beeper.. They then had some comm problems on the 150 radial that appeared to be at the reporting point KZ although it doesn’t actually say, and had problems with the INS platform. That indicates something on the ground in a hole jamming both the UHF and VHF frequencies. The INS? No idea. Was there a huge magnet? Probably not. (If the platform got dumped, then the show was over & they would immediately land if possible.) The description of the INS fluctuation 30-50 decrees does not state in which axis.

Quote:
“While the F-4 was on a long final approach the crew noticed another cylinder shaped object (about the size of a T bird at 10,000 ft) with bright steady lights on each end and a flasher in the middle.”
It does not mention what color the lights were but all aircraft flying at night carry nav lights on the tips of the wings that are green and red, with a white light on the tail. There is also a red rotating beacon on the fuselage. By seeing this from below in the city light glare, it could look like the description, with the wings appearing to be a cylinder, the beacon in the center and the nav lights at the ends. It would have been about 6k ft above them. The aircrew should have known that it was another bird though.

Ok, a short class on the F-4 electrical system! I’m doing this from memory after 35 years, so bear with me. If anyone wants better information, let me know & I’ll dig my dash one out of the closet and go into detail.

All the systems on this airplane are late 1950’s technology. It has a generator on each engine that produces DC with a transformer that converts some of the power to AC, a battery, and a Ram Air Turbine (RAT) (the RAT is an emergency generator) that can be deployed to produce both DC and AC if both generators fail. There is also a bus tie so that if a generator fails, the other can pick up the total load. There are about five DC buses that run various lighting systems, some instruments, part of the weapons system, intercom and some pumps. There are some seven or eight AC buses that run the nav, comm, radar, platform, most of the weapons systems, and some delivery computers. There are various relays that latch each of the electrical sources to each other and to the different buses. There are also about a jillion circuit breakers for almost everything in the world, with almost all of them in the back seat.

Navigation consists of two components, the TACAN system, and the “platform” that carries the attitude information, electronic compass system and inertial navigation system. It gets its heading information from a fluxgate and TACAN information from, of course, the TACAN. The rest is internal. One of the shortcomings of the INS is the fact that the position drifts, so it can’t be used for precision nav. After two or so hours, the indicated position could be off by as much as a mile. The TACAN is a military system that reads a ground site and gets bearing and distance from the site. It does not have a VOR, ADF or ILS system, and is way too early for GPS. The radio is UHF only. The radar can be used for navigation, but is not designed for it.

The radar is made by Westinghouse and is what Henry (and Bob?) worked on. It’s analog, not digital, and is a hybrid system of solid state & tube (valve for our Brit friends) technology. A real EMP would have fried the semiconductors & knocked it out till repair, So Henry is right about self repair. The display is not the cathode ray tube that everyone thinks of as a radar display. It has what is called a storage tube and is designed for air to air. There is no gradation of the return display, there is just a return or not a return depending on what the gain level is. The backseater controls the level of return of the display and the elevation of the radar antenna with a couple of knobs. It is extremely hard to give a size of an unknown target using just the radar, simply by the way it is used, so the estimate of the bogey having a radar return of a tanker is somewhat of a guess without having looked at a target of a known size shortly before hand.

Interference
The easiest way to block communications is to transmit noise on the same frequency with more power than the radio you’re talking to. The effect is that you get blasted with constant noise. There was no indication in the story as to what the effects of the comm problems were. Since the problems were at the same location for both the commercial bird and #2, there may have been a dead spot in that area. It did not say the location of #1’s problem. Just not enough info. As for navigation, all that is necessary is to blast noise and the TACAN reception is knocked out. In fact, the TACAN will occasionally lose lock for short periods while just flying straight & level.
Radar jamming works much the same way in the search mode, except that modulation is not used. The effect on the display is a totally flooded area anywhere the radar horn can see the target. Any lobe will do. The operator knows that the target is there, he just doesn’t know where. The problem for the target on this one is that when the strength of the reflected return becomes greater than the strength of the transmitted return, then the target gets burnt through.
Finally, Chaff is the oldest method of jamming radar, and was used in WWII. Still effective

In the attack mode the most popular counter is what is called a gate stealer. It breaks your lock and you have to reacquire another lock for launching a Sparrow. I don’t think it is still classified, but I don’t know, so I won’t go there. There are other methods of playing with radars that I know of, more that I’ve heard of and don’t know how they work, and I don’t know how many that I’ve never heard of (take that Rumsfeld). B-52s and E-F/B-111s carried quite an arsenal of jamming & spoofing equipment. I know the Marine EA-6s also carried it but I have no idea how much or of what. For what it’s worth I don’t think that any US electronics or Soviet planes were there. But then, I don’t know.

Jamming the AIM-9 is simply drawing the seeker away from the target by providing another stronger IR source. Note the film clips of A-10s in Bagdad pulling off an ordnance delivery pass and kicking out a half dozen flares to spoof any Strellas. Radar is not needed for the AIM-9.

What happened with all the losing and regaining stuff? The exact instruments and their mode of failure are not indicated. The general description is not the way the electrical system would work. If you lose something like the systems, or instruments, even by something external, a circuit breaker normally pops, and the GIB has to reset it. When #2 tried to fire a Sidewinder, he said he lost the fire control panel and comm. I wonder if they had been on hot mike and someone switched to cold mike on the intercom. That would have given roughly the same effect at least for a short time. With the Sidewinder, did he have a growl or did he try to hose it off ballistically? If I remember correctly, the launch signal is on one of the DC buses, can be powered by only the battery and only needs the trigger pull if the switches are set correctly. The switches are all mechanical or relay and he didn’t indicate a total electrical loss. Again, Radar is not needed for Sidewinders If there was a failure on the weapons panel only, It should have been a circuit breaker pop with a need to reset. There was nothing mentioned. The fact that the panel failed at the exact time he tried to shoot is really suspicious. There is no way to tell that a Sidewinder is being launched from outside the plane. Also it is a short range weapon with a normal range of not more than about two miles. Why was he trying to shoot at a missile at a range of over ten miles? Even when the missile fell in behind him it was still out of range. He was a Colonel, so he had a lot of time in the bird even though he was no longer as proficient as a senior Captain or Major. And due to his experience, he shouldn’t get rattled like a Lt. might.

The telex is incomplete but looks normal although I was not familiar with them. Since the incident was odd, the normal list of addresses would be a shotgun approach to see if anyone in the world had any information. The next question is: what was the expertise of Lt. Col. Mooy. It appears that he was not an F-4 driver and may have not even been rated. He did what he was supposed to do by taking down the next day interview and sending it on. What was in the telex would have been a glaring indication of “strange, that doesn’t sound right” for someone familiar with the bird. It apparently went out without someone at MAAG who was familiar with the F-4 looking at it. I think the next day briefing was not the real debrief but one put on for the general. The real debrief would have taken place immediately after the flight.

My take on this is that apparently something odd happened, but the story is so garbled and error riddled that it can’t be used for anything.. It also seems that there is a lot missing from this story. Someone is spoofing someone?



I have gotten another link from a post in the thread, from Wickipedia org
/wiki/1976_Tehran_UFO_incident
I’ll use this for a few more comments, but I’m not going back & editing.

This version has the Air Force Command Post getting the civilian call first instead of the tower. So who got the calls and who were the aircrews really talking. to? My opinion is that civilians in the area would not have the phone number of the command post, so it was the tower they talked to. The aircrews? Who knows.

#1 aircrew Captain Mohammad Reza Azizkhani, & Yaddi Nazeri
#2 aircrew Lieutenant Parviz Jafari & ??

So at this time, Jafari was not a Col. but a Lt. Considering that he was a new guy, I think that he got himself into a tight spot, flubbed his switch settings, and then tried to cover his ass. What he was seeing, I have no idea, but it seems he saw something. (When we practiced air-to-air, there was usually other stuff hanging on the pylons, so we did not do the switch drill. When the only task for the flight was air-to-air, and carried captive missiles or empty pylons, we did do the switch drill. As a result, early in the flights, there was usually some switch errors that negated a successful kill, usually by not turning on the master arm switch). My guess is that he got into the habit of not doing switches, and tried to do an AIM-9 launch with the missile still safed. Or even, tried to launch it with the pickle button rather than the trigger. He seemed to be excited at that point.

In this version, the tower chief says that #2 was about 2500 ft when he went over the tower with the bogey, not its missile, in close trail. The first description is that of a dark rectangle without mentioning lights. The description of the object on Wiki resembles that of the object seen while #2 was on final approach, resembling an aircraft with nav lights and rotating beacon. Again, if it was an aircraft, they should have recognized it as such, so I’m not going to speculate. Extra question: nowhere does it indicate that either of the F-4s were flying blacked out, so did they stay lit during all this?

One other thing that he stated was that he tried to eject but the “eject button” didn’t work. This is another major “I call major BS” item. There is no such thing as an eject button. The ejection system is totally mechanical. There are two handles for ejection, one between your legs on the front of the seat in the form of a large triangular ring The other is a curtain on the top of the seat with a circular ring at each front.corner. All mechanical by rods, pneumatics, explosive charges and rockets.

I would like to see what both pilots’ total time in type and night time in the last quarter was. It might explain at least a little if they were ultra low time.

My take still stands. Due to the munged information on the aircraft side, I’m guessing that the rest would be just as bad, and I think that it would be useless as proof of anything.
Puddle Duck is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th November 2009, 05:42 PM   #2827
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
 
Akhenaten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia
Posts: 28,716
That's awesome.

A thread winner with your second post!
__________________


Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon

The Australasian Skeptics Forum
Akhenaten is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th November 2009, 05:51 PM   #2828
Astrophotographer
Graduate Poster
 
Astrophotographer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Manchester, NH
Posts: 1,892
Originally Posted by Puddle Duck View Post
So at this time, Jafari was not a Col. but a Lt. Considering that he was a new guy, I think that he got himself into a tight spot, flubbed his switch settings, and then tried to cover his ass. What he was seeing, I have no idea, but it seems he saw something. (When we practiced air-to-air, there was usually other stuff hanging on the pylons, so we did not do the switch drill. When the only task for the flight was air-to-air, and carried captive missiles or empty pylons, we did do the switch drill. As a result, early in the flights, there was usually some switch errors that negated a successful kill, usually by not turning on the master arm switch). My guess is that he got into the habit of not doing switches, and tried to do an AIM-9 launch with the missile still safed. Or even, tried to launch it with the pickle button rather than the trigger. He seemed to be excited at that point.
This is interesting and reminded me of a story my father told me when he was on the Lake Champlain in Korea. He was an AO3 or something like that and a Banshee/Panther (I can't recall which) came back with most of it's ammunition from the cannon/MGs or bombs still aboard. My father and his compatriots went over the plane and could not find out why the guns did not fire/the ordinance did not drop/arm. It turns out the pilot was a new Ensign, and despite claiming that he did not screw up, it was determined by the group that he was the reason the oridinance did not work. He implied that this was not unusual and this happened at various times with other pilots. Most of the time it was not the weaponry but the pilots that caused the failure.

Thanks for the information about the electrical systems as well (as an Electonics Tech I found it pretty informative). I recall seeing an episode of "DOGFIGHTS" where Cunningham was flying his F-4 after being practically destroyed by a SAM. They lost just about everything and still kept the bird flying until they got over the water so they would not end up in a Vietnam POW camp. It seems the Phantom tended to be able to survive heavy damage.
Astrophotographer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th November 2009, 06:35 PM   #2829
Audible Click
The gap in the plot
 
Audible Click's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: BFE
Posts: 3,576
Thanks for the informative post, Puddle Duck.
__________________
"Thank you, darling heart.
Love you." Baba
Australasian Skeptics Forum
Audible Click is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th November 2009, 07:03 PM   #2830
Stray Cat
Philosopher
 
Stray Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: The Land That Time Forgot
Posts: 6,805
Originally Posted by Puddle Duck View Post
... Quoted to give credit and sniped to save space...
Great post Puddle Duck.
For me (as a non flyer, non expert in the military), the biggest immediate red flag was the bit about the ejector seat not working. With no technical expertise in the actual mechanical system used, my thought was that no one would even attempt to eject from a flyable plane. But now as you point out, if he pulled the mechanical lever and it failed to 'go off', is he left with the 'ring pull' part in his hand with the possibility that he is now sat on an armed explosive seat that could go off (for instance when it's out of range of the UFO that is claimed to have caused the system failure) at any time?

Regarding the rest of your analysis - Maybe what we need is a flight plan worked out from the descriptions of speed, direction etc. I'm not well enough versed in doing stuff like that to attempt it though.
__________________
It's only my madness that stops me from going insane!

Last edited by Stray Cat; 14th November 2009 at 07:05 PM.
Stray Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th November 2009, 07:09 PM   #2831
Stray Cat
Philosopher
 
Stray Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: The Land That Time Forgot
Posts: 6,805
Originally Posted by Rramjet View Post
Presenting possibilities that are easily refuted by the evidence IS unscientific – unless you have compelling counter-evidence – which of course you do not. And certainly, the peer review process has comprehensively refuted your assertions on the matter.
In light of the new technical analysis done by Puddle Duck, I think my thoughts are quite well laid out and have not been "comprehensively refuted" at this point.

Your constant refusal to accept that this story could be a mish mash of ambiguity wrapped up in sensationalisation speaks volumes about how you manage to cling to your religious belief in Alien Craft.
__________________
It's only my madness that stops me from going insane!
Stray Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th November 2009, 07:44 PM   #2832
GeeMack
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Not Bandiagara
Posts: 7,241
Originally Posted by Stray Cat View Post
In light of the new technical analysis done by Puddle Duck, I think my thoughts are quite well laid out and have not been "comprehensively refuted" at this point.

Your constant refusal to accept that this story could be a mish mash of ambiguity wrapped up in sensationalisation speaks volumes about how you manage to cling to your religious belief in Alien Craft.

So we're over 2800 posts into this thread. The opening poster made a claim that aliens exist, and stated with confidence that he would bring the evidence to support that claim. He tried with the Rogue River sighting, and gave us nothing but arguments from ignorance and incredulity. He was unable to demonstrate his contention that mundane explanations couldn't apply. Totally failed.

Then he moved to the Iran incident, and again offered arguments from ignorance and incredulity, nothing more. Extreme doubt has been cast on the descriptions of the incident which he's relied on to support his incredulity. And now we know, because of all the apparent factual errors in his description of the incident, that much of his argument is based on ignorance, again. Another total failure.

Seems you're using a lot of words to get nowhere, Rramjet. You've lost your argument with the Rogue River and you've lost your argument with Iran. Where to next?
GeeMack is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th November 2009, 08:07 PM   #2833
Stray Cat
Philosopher
 
Stray Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: The Land That Time Forgot
Posts: 6,805
Originally Posted by GeeMack View Post
Seems you're using a lot of words to get nowhere, Rramjet. You've lost your argument with the Rogue River and you've lost your argument with Iran. Where to next?
Not to mention his abandoned McMinnville discussion on another thread, which starts about half way down this page
Even though the general UFO subject is discussed throughout.
__________________
It's only my madness that stops me from going insane!
Stray Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th November 2009, 08:22 PM   #2834
Patricio Elicer
Obsessed with Reality
 
Patricio Elicer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Santiago, Chile
Posts: 4,464
As if it were necessary to remind and repeat....

... that's the problem with testimonies on a matter of this sort. Everytime a witness reports fantastic UFO stories, and independant data becomes available for assessment, we discover plenty of errors, mistakes and inaccuracies.

Sometimes the witness is trying to decieve, most times the witness decieve themselves. There's nothing unusual in the former and nothing bad on the latter, it's just human nature. But it speaks volumes on the low reliability of testimonies.

Well, but you all knew this already, ..... with some exceptions, that is.
__________________
The world is not required to be in perfect harmony with human ambition. - Carl Sagan
Patricio Elicer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th November 2009, 09:14 PM   #2835
TjW
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: up in the air
Posts: 11,064
Originally Posted by GeeMack View Post
So we're over 2800 posts into this thread. The opening poster made a claim that aliens exist, and stated with confidence that he would bring the evidence to support that claim. He tried with the Rogue River sighting, and gave us nothing but arguments from ignorance and incredulity. He was unable to demonstrate his contention that mundane explanations couldn't apply. Totally failed.

Then he moved to the Iran incident, and again offered arguments from ignorance and incredulity, nothing more. Extreme doubt has been cast on the descriptions of the incident which he's relied on to support his incredulity. And now we know, because of all the apparent factual errors in his description of the incident, that much of his argument is based on ignorance, again. Another total failure.

Seems you're using a lot of words to get nowhere, Rramjet. You've lost your argument with the Rogue River and you've lost your argument with Iran. Where to next?
You forgot his brief flirtation with the Mexico City hoax video, where he presented Maccabee as refuting the analysis that the video had been hoaxed, when in fact Maccabee simply found frames in the video where the effect discovered through analysis was visible to the naked eye.
__________________
TjW

People like TjW -- Kelly
TjW is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th November 2009, 09:17 PM   #2836
Belgian thought
Muse
 
Belgian thought's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 865
Originally Posted by Puddle Duck View Post
Interference
The easiest way to block communications is to transmit noise on the same frequency with more power than the radio you’re talking to. The effect is that you get blasted with constant noise. There was no indication in the story as to what the effects of the comm problems were. Since the problems were at the same location for both the commercial bird and #2, there may have been a dead spot in that area. It did not say the location of #1’s problem. Just not enough info. As for navigation, all that is necessary is to blast noise and the TACAN reception is knocked out. In fact, the TACAN will occasionally lose lock for short periods while just flying straight & level.
Radar jamming works much the same way in the search mode, except that modulation is not used. The effect on the display is a totally flooded area anywhere the radar horn can see the target. Any lobe will do. The operator knows that the target is there, he just doesn’t know where. The problem for the target on this one is that when the strength of the reflected return becomes greater than the strength of the transmitted return, then the target gets burnt through.
Finally, Chaff is the oldest method of jamming radar, and was used in WWII. Still effective

Interestingly the shah of Iran was recommended by Richard Hallock of RAND to set up an AWACs system in 1973.

The shah considered the choice excellent as a way of saving money - 7 airborne radar systems meaning they could economize on the 30 ground systems.

From: The Life and Times of the Shah - By Gholam Reza Afkhami

In August of 1973, the Shah selected to buy the F-14 Tomcat, The F-14 is also used as a mini-Awacs aircraft with its powerful AN/AWG-9 radar, and the sale was approved by the US government in November of 1973.
The Iranian Tomcat was virtually identical to the US Navy version, with only a few classified avionics items being omitted.
The base site for Iranian Tomcat operations was at Isfahan - roughly 300km South of Terhan.
The first of 80 Tomcats arrived in Iran in January of 1976.

Puddle Duck – and hear! hear! a great post by the way – could these Tomcats have been used to jam the radars as part of a training exercise? It might also explain why a General was 'sitting alert' and not merely ticking boxes.

Last edited by Belgian thought; 14th November 2009 at 09:27 PM.
Belgian thought is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th November 2009, 12:37 AM   #2837
amb
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Western Australia
Posts: 21,408
Occam's Razor rules out any alien UFOs. The explanation with the least amount of assumptions is usually correct. And if the explanation requires more extraordinary, more complicated questions to answer the hypothesis, then usually there's nothing there to explain.
amb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th November 2009, 01:35 AM   #2838
Access Denied
Critical Thinker
 
Access Denied's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: [redacted]
Posts: 338
Originally Posted by Rramjet View Post
The provenance here is simply NOT in question.
Umm... before you go jumping to conclusions again. Wait, too late…

I just found what I was looking for… an actual copy of Mooy's "Memorandum for the Record”, and more importantly, the responsive letter to Klass from Mooy’s Commander it was originally attached to.

Stay tuned…

(short on time and still digesting Puddle Duck’s most excellent post)

Last edited by Access Denied; 15th November 2009 at 01:39 AM.
Access Denied is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th November 2009, 07:21 AM   #2839
kritter
Student
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 31
From what I understand the explanation for many UFO's, especially in the southwest, is also related to military experimental vehicles and aircraft. Anyone got any actual info on this to show the believers?
kritter is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th November 2009, 08:44 AM   #2840
Access Denied
Critical Thinker
 
Access Denied's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: [redacted]
Posts: 338
Originally Posted by kritter View Post
From what I understand the explanation for many UFO's, especially in the southwest, is also related to military experimental vehicles and aircraft. Anyone got any actual info on this to show the believers?
Well, here’s one early example…

(from the unclassified CIA's Role in the Study of UFOs, 1947-90 by Gerald K. Haines available at the CIA website)

Quote:
CIA's U-2 and OXCART as UFOs
In November 1954, CIA had entered into the world of high technology with its U-2 overhead reconnaissance project. Working with Lockheed's Advanced Development facility in Burbank, California, known as the Skunk Works, and Kelly Johnson, an eminent aeronautical engineer, the Agency by August 1955 was testing a high-altitude experimental aircraft--the U-2. It could fly at 60,000 feet; in the mid-1950s, most commercial airliners flew between 10,000 feet and 20,000 feet. Consequently, once the U-2 started test flights, commercial pilots and air traffic controllers began reporting a large increase in UFO sightings. (44) (U)

The early U-2s were silver (they were later painted black) and reflected the rays from the sun, especially at sunrise and sunset. They often appeared as fiery objects to observers below. Air Force BLUE BOOK investigators aware of the secret U-2 flights tried to explain away such sightings by linking them to natural phenomena such as ice crystals and temperature inversions. By checking with the Agency's U-2 Project Staff in Washington, BLUE BOOK investigators were able to attribute many UFO sightings to U-2 flights. They were careful, however, not to reveal the true cause of the sighting to the public.

According to later estimates from CIA officials who worked on the U-2 project and the OXCART (SR-71, or Blackbird) project, over half of all UFO reports from the late 1950s through the 1960s were accounted for by manned reconnaissance flights (namely the U-2) over the United States. (45) This led the Air Force to make misleading and deceptive statements to the public in order to allay public fears and to protect an extraordinarily sensitive national security project. While perhaps justified, this deception added fuel to the later conspiracy theories and the coverup controversy of the 1970s. The percentage of what the Air Force considered unexplained UFO sightings fell to 5.9 percent in 1955 and to 4 percent in 1956.
The rest of the report should be required reading for anyone interested in the subject of UFOs and "disclosure"…
Access Denied is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

JREF Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:50 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2001-2013, James Randi Educational Foundation. All Rights Reserved.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.