UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[SnidelyW]

Originally Posted by Access Denied

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)


The rest of the report should be required reading for anyone interested in the subject of UFOs and "disclosure"…

Interesting you should happen to quote something regarding Kelly Johnson, who, along with several crew members of a Lockheed Constellation aircraft, saw a UFO, and reported it.

Having the guy who designed the U-2 see something he doesn't recognize as an aircraft (and still keep his job) seems to cement the entire concept of UFO's. Several references to the CIA and UFO'S can be found in this link, as can details of the Johnson sighting.

http://www.nicap.org/lockufoinc.htm

[Marduk]

Originally Posted by Access Denied

Well, here’s one early example…

heres another example, (Rramjets gonna love it)
http://www.thestealthblimp.com/

Quote:

Thousands of people all over the world have seen a giant black triangle of enormous dimensions. It is not a space ship. It is the largest stealth craft in the world! Veiled in secrecy for decades this enigma can now finally be revealed as THE STEALTH BLIMP.

In 1981 the Navy contracted Lockheed to develop a High Altitude Surveillance Platform called Hi-Spot. NASA did feasibility studies for “Hi-Spot” and a sister program called “Happ”. Shortly after that the program became classified and no more press releases were issued. Then in 1982 Lockheed proposed a mammoth "Stealth Blimp" that had the ability to project a star field on its belly so people looking up at the sky wouldn't see it. Aereon corporation then updated the design of the massive airship to contain phased radar arrays under Navy and Air force contracts

like wowowowowowow

[Marduk]

Originally Posted by SnidelyW

Interesting you should happen to quote something regarding Kelly Johnson, who, along with several crew members of a Lockheed Constellation aircraft, saw a UFO, and reported it.

Having the guy who designed the U-2 see something he doesn't recognize as an aircraft (and still keep his job) seems to cement the entire concept of UFO's. Several references to the CIA and UFO'S can be found in this link, as can details of the Johnson sighting.

http://www.nicap.org/lockufoinc.htm

did you miss the bit about the government deliberately using "ufo" as a cover for black ops projects or are you just being obtuse ?

[GeeMack]

Originally Posted by SnidelyW

Interesting you should happen to [...]

Interesting you should happen to prefer ignorance over answering simple yes/no questions, much like Rramjet does. But, SnidelyW, how about we revisit that question I asked in my Post 2766, that question about that dent in that police car. Yes or no, do you know what caused the dent? Do you have any evidence that it was caused by some particular thing?

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Originally Posted by Stray Cat

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.

Another amusing (for various degrees of "amusing") thread is:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...al+Examination

Since I don't suffer fools very gracefully and ended up pretty much on my own with Rog R in this thread, I walked away from in after some posts were moved to AAH. As I consequence I am really enjoying this thread.

I am reminded of the Mark Twain quote -- "A lie will go round the world while truth is pulling its boots on."

[TjW]

Originally Posted by SnidelyW

Interesting you should happen to quote something regarding Kelly Johnson, who, along with several crew members of a Lockheed Constellation aircraft, saw a UFO, and reported it.

Having the guy who designed the U-2 see something he doesn't recognize as an aircraft (and still keep his job) seems to cement the entire concept of UFO's. Several references to the CIA and UFO'S can be found in this link, as can details of the Johnson sighting.

http://www.nicap.org/lockufoinc.htm

Is there any reason that couldn't be a lenticular wave cloud from a traveling wave, similar to the low level one sighted over the Mojave?

[GeeMack]

Originally Posted by SnidelyW

Interesting you should happen to quote something regarding Kelly Johnson, who, along with several crew members of a Lockheed Constellation aircraft, saw a UFO, and reported it.

Hey, SnidelyW, how about that thing Kelly Johnson saw and was apparently unable to identify. Yes or no, do you have any evidence that it was some particular thing?

[Puddle Duck]

[quote= From Stray Cat ]...snip...

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?

...snip...[/quote]

You’re misunderstanding a bit. When he stated that he tried to push the eject button, he was intimating that the ejection sequence was started by an electrical system, and that the bogey had caused the seat to malfunction.
The ejection system is purely mechanical.. When any handle (not lever) is pulled, the first thing that happens is (overly simplified) a pressurized gas cylinder somewhat like a large CO2 cartridge is punched, sending pneumatic pressure to first fire the rear canopy, then the seat, and do the same to the front. Most of the actuations are pneumatically driven.
Eventually the pressurized gas will leak off so no, you are not sitting on a charged seat, and it can not go off when any jamming is stopped because anything not part of the seat has no effect, i.e. nothing is electrical. The handle will not separate from the seat, at least until the chute opens & pulls you away from it.


[quote=From Stray Cat]...snip...

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.

...snip...[/quote]

This won’t work. There is nowhere near enough information there to do a real flight profile. What I posted is my own SWAG. Notice all the probablys.


[quote=From Geemack]...snip...

Rramjet. You've lost your argument with the Rogue River and you've lost your argument with Iran.

...snip...[/quote]

I’m not saying that ET is impossible. Highly improbable yes. What I am saying is that due to all the data munging of the aviation narrative, I think that the rest of the story is probably screwed up also and there is no real way to prove anything, so it is a non-event for any flying saucer story. Old computer saying: GIGO.
As you know, human memory is somewhat plastic, so by a short time after the event, any participant will have modified his memory to incorporate other inputs from those around them. I think that Jafari flubbed his switches on the attempted launch, but really believes that he did them properly. I think also that if he heard anyone say something along the lines of "flying saucer, alien or from another world", in the stressed situation he was getting into, that would be the default line of thinking for him, and it would tend to stress him even more. Remember, he was a young Lt. at this time.


[quote=From BelgianThought]...snip...

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.

...snip...[/quote]

Jafari was not a general at this time. He was a new Leftenant.
Could the F-14s have been used as a training Red Force on an unannounced exercise? Theoretically possible, but so highly unlikely that I would feel safe denying it. There would have to have had too many other people that knew about it, that would have stepped in and corrected the mess before all this happened.
What I have read of the F-14 fire control is amazing and makes the F-4 system look like a crayon mark on the windscreen, but I don’t think they had any internal EW capability, unless it was a special order. That would have made the GIB a very busy man indeed. It shows what a decade of tech advancement will do. And yes, I have no doubt that they could be used in the AWACS role.

The F-14s arriving in January would have been operational by September, but just barely. I wonder why Gen Youssefi did not think to launch one. Probably inexperienced crews, as their base was not much further than Shaharoki. Possibly there weren’t any alert birds there yet.
When this gaggle started, all that was wanted was a single visual ID pass.

[Puddle Duck]

OK, I don’t know what I screwed up on my last post. I tried to make the shaded box for the quote with the “Originally Posted by xxxx” I typed the squote block into word, then the quote and closed it with the slashed squote block. Anyone know what I did wrong?

[Marduk]

Originally Posted by Puddle Duck

OK, I don’t know what I screwed up on my last post. I tried to make the shaded box for the quote with the “Originally Posted by xxxx” I typed the squote block into word, then the quote and closed it with the slashed squote block. Anyone know what I did wrong?

you didn't use capital letters when you typed "QUOTE"

[Toke]

Originally Posted by Puddle Duck

OK, I don’t know what I screwed up on my last post. I tried to make the shaded box for the quote with the “Originally Posted by xxxx” I typed the squote block into word, then the quote and closed it with the slashed squote block. Anyone know what I did wrong?

(quote=Puddle Duck;5313227)

I think you are missing the numbers that refer to a specific post, it shows as a little arrow.

[Marduk]

I had a look at the code, your [/quote] is appearing as [squote]
I suggest you degremlin your keyboard and adjust the quotes

[Marduk]

Originally Posted by Toke

(quote=Puddle Duck;5313227)

I think you are missing the numbers that refer to a specific post, it shows as a little arrow.

that shouldn't matter, anything after = can be taken as filler

[jhunter1163]

I thought a stealth blimp would just look like the word "Goodyear" floating in the air.

[Marduk]

Originally Posted by jhunter1163

I thought a stealth blimp would just look like the word "Goodyear" floating in the air.

nooo, that'd just be stupid, theyd at least anagramise it to "yeargood" or something else as highly intelligent to fool ufologists

[Wolrab]

Originally Posted by Marduk

nooo, that'd just be stupid, theyd at least anagramise it to "yeargood" or something else as highly intelligent to fool ufologists

Gay Rodeo (round up for anal probing)
A Doe Orgy (probably something to do with cattle mutilations)
Deary Goo (leftovers from the above)
Are God Yo (to fool the religious)

[Stray Cat]

Originally Posted by Marduk

nooo, that'd just be stupid, theyd at least anagramise it to "yeargood" or something else as highly intelligent to fool ufologists

What about: Gay Rodeo that'd fool UFOlogists.

Edit: I really shouldn't spend so long on the phone with the reply post window open... beaten to it.

[Rramjet]

Originally Posted by Puddle Duck

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 (…) there has to be a lot more to those debriefs than what is here.

Puddle Duck seems to have missed the fact that there exists the Routing Slip (McKenzie) and the Memorandum-for-the Record (Mooy) and also the statements by Jafari (the pilot of the second F-4) – and MUCH more besides!

There is some good information in what Puddle Duck posts, but equally there is some plain old garbage! In other words it is “misinformation” at its worst. Good information mixed in with bad, opinion with fact, (all under the “expert” guise of an former F-4 pilot) - and no way to tell them apart without extensive refutation that might well run into many times the length of the original post! Ughh!

Originally Posted by Puddle Duck

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.

We don’t have access to the “tower tapes” but there is an excellent analysis of the radar information here: (http://www.narcap.org/reports/006/na...gh_12-8-02.pdf) (pp. 125-149) May I suggest you read the article and I will look forward to you opinion then.

Originally Posted by Puddle Duck

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.

”When I talked to Henry in late 1982 he still remembered the night, 6 years before, when he was rudely awakened by the loud roar of jets taking off at full speed. At that time he lived close to the Shahroki Air Field in Hamadan, Iran. Jets taking off at full speed at night and “with afterburner” were a rarity, he said. Henry was an employee of the Westinghouse Corp. and he was in Iran to help maintain the avionics, including radar, in the F-4 Phantom jets that the Iranians had bought several years earlier. Although he did not know the reason for the high speed takeoffs at the time they occurred, he found out the next day: the jets chased a UFO. Several days after that, he and co-workers were allowed to examine the planes. They found that all the electronics were operating normally. This was surprising, considering what the pilots reported had happened during the chase!’

Now Puddle Duck is claiming something he is entirely ignorant of - SOP at a foreign airfield. Besides, his statements on the matter are actually contradictory:

Originally Posted by Puddle Duck

“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.”

Beg ‘pardon? “Always” and then “only a couple of times”? and “…military power take off…”? …whatever that means…

Originally Posted by Puddle Duck

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.

There were THREE separate “beeper” sources in the incident. The first:

“ Pirouzi now knew that the strange object was real, but he didn’t do anything about it. He had normal aircraft control duties to occupy his time. There were no aircraft scheduled to land at this time, but during the next hour four aircraft flew through his control area. As these aircraft passed by the pilots reported receiving an emergency radio beacon signal at 121.12 MHz. The pilot of a civilian liner asked if there was a crashed aircraft in the vicinity. There was none. The onset of the beacon signals combined with the earlier reports and his own sighting of some strangely lighted object began to worry him. He decided to appeal to “higher powers.” He called the Imperial Iranian Air Force (IIAF).”

(http://www.brumac.8k.com/IranJetCase/)

"We had no aircraft expected to land, although around this time several aircraft were due to cross into our flight information region. They started to report by radio that they could hear emergency sig¬nals coming from an automatic aircraft distress transmitter.

“The first report in was a BOAC airliner, who called and said, 'Do you have a crashed aircraft in your area? We are receiving an automatic signal on 121.12 megacycles.' We said we had no crashed aircraft or missing ones in our area nor had any made a forced landing.

"Then a Swissair, a Lufthansa and an Iran Airlines plane all reported hearing the emergency signal. I decided to report the whole thing to the air force base because by now I was getting really worried."

(http://www.cohenufo.org/iran.htm)

And the second:

“Before he left the area the pilot reported receiving an emergency beacon signal, as had the earlier civilian aircraft.” This is in reference to the end of the first F-4’s UFO chase.”

(http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_file...p_ufo_iran.pdf)

And third:

“During the daylight the F-4 crew was taken out to the area in a helicopter where the object apparently landed, nothing was noticed at the spot where they thought the object landed (a dry lake bed) but as they circled off to the west of the area they picked up a very noticeable beeper signal, at the point where the return was the loudest was a small house with a garden. They landed and asked the people if they had noticed anything strange last night. The people talked about a loud noise and a very bright light like lightning.”

(http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_file...p_ufo_iran.pdf)

Now I don’t know much about beepers, but given all that occurred that night and given that (as Puddle Duck says) “beepers don’t normally just fall out of planes”, then the reasonable assumption would be that it had something to do with the UFO…

Originally Posted by Puddle Duck

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.

“I’m not any type of expert on this.”? Quite!
See an extensive radar analysis here: (http://www.narcap.org/reports/006/na...gh_12-8-02.pdf)

Moreover, the F-4s (at least the second one) obtained a radar lock on the object and would have been able to relay the data back to base. Note: to get a VC reading that last more than several seconds you must have good radar contact. An accidental reflection off a mountain or a ground object will not work for more than a few seconds. In his article Dr. Maccabee points out that the pilot had an initial radar lock at 27nm and then VC=150kts until the radar distance was 25nm would have required at least 48 seconds.

Originally Posted by Puddle Duck

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.

So the moon was not a factor in visibility.

“The only problem is you can’t see anything in the dark”.

But you can see a “brightly lighted object” of “intense brilliance” and especially when it is alternating “blue, green, red and orange in color”! Moreover, according to the Routing Slip the pilots had “night visibility” capability.

“He was probably told this was an ID pass.”
Pure speculation. We have no idea WHAT “he” was told!

”… he probably climbed to about 20k ft MSL till he got to within 50-40 miles of the bogey, then descended.”

Pure speculation again… but we KNOW from the routing slip that the FIRST F-4 got to within 25nm of the object when he “lost all instrumentation and communication (UHF and intercom)” whereupon he “broke off” and returned to base. But also:

We know more about the second F-4:

“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. (…) According to Pirouzi, the General ordered the pilot to descend to 6,000 ft, halfway between the primary object above and the ground below…”

Originally Posted by Puddle Duck

“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.”

Pure speculation again… and interestingly (F-4) Cruise speed: 506 kn (585 mph, 940 km/h) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-4_Phantom_II) Morover:

“According to the pilot, as he approached at more than the speed of sound the object sped up to stay ahead.”

And we DO know more about the second F-4:

The SECOND F-4 launched and got a radar lock on the object at 27nm (apparent size of a 707 tanker) and his “rate of closure” was “150nmph”. When the F-4 got to 25nm the object then stayed ahead of him at that range.

“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.”

And then we have the disparate statements from Puddle Duck:

“It appeared to now be as high as 12,000 ft”

Originally Posted by Puddle Duck

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.

That was from the tower. But as we have noted, the second F-4 DID have a good radar lock on the UFO and would have been able to give a good height estimate, (otherwise the General would not have subsequently ordered the F-4 to 6000ft – which was halfway between the ground and the UFO.

“he could see it from 70 miles away”

Originally Posted by Puddle Duck

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.

We have already noted the “intense brilliance” of the object…so “seeing” it was certainly not a problem.

[/i]“he approached at more than the speed of sound”[/i]

Originally Posted by Puddle Duck

Why? This was just an ID pass. There was no critical time factor.

This is PURE speculation. We have only the evidence presented us to go on. The question may be asked, but given the circumstances, I suspect they would have wanted to find as much about the object as quickly as possible. They would not have wanted to waste time just cruising around! After all, an unknown object had invaded controlled airspace and they felt sufficiently alarmed to scramble two F-4s!

“the object sped up to stay ahead”

Originally Posted by Puddle Duck

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?

We DO have the data on this. See above.

“while the jet was about 150 miles from Tehran, the object appeared over the city again, having beaten the jet back to the city”

Originally Posted by Puddle Duck

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?

Actually the F-4 headed northeast from Shahroki (Hamadan) “and proceeded to a point 40nm north of Tehran” (Routing Slip). The above statement maybe a simple mistake… the point 40nm north of Tehran is 150nm from Shahrokhi…but where you get “200miles” from is anybody’s guess (150 nm = 172m). At Mach 1 (717mph) that would take the F-4 about 14 minutes. At 500mph (just above your cruising speed of 420kn) that would be 20 minutes.

Besides you have obviously read nothing about UFOs. This is a trademark feature of MANY UFO reports (the ability to get from A to B “instantaneously” – or at least unbelievably quickly). There is nothing unusual about this if you had taken the time to understand the literature on UFOs. This is relatively NORMAL UFO behaviour. Besides we know from the second F-4 that he had trouble getting a lock on it because it was changing location so rapidly.

“…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).”

Originally Posted by Puddle Duck

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

Finally, a statement by Puddle Duck about which he is actually qualified to comment on! Well done. It took a long time to produce, but there we have it. The contention is within his qualified experience and thus we cannot reasonably dispute it.

I find this quite amusing. So far Puddle Duck (and in much of what follows) has been recalling and commenting on events from over 30 years ago in which he was not involved using “arguments from ignorance” – the very things the “skeptics” berate me for – yet when Puddle duck DOES this, his claims are suddenly “golden” and he is congratulated for making them!

“Youssefi ordered him to close again to get a better view”

Originally Posted by Puddle Duck

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.

Why loiters? The second F-4 is now merely minutes away! (given that, according to the Routing Slip, it was scrambled just ten minutes after the first - and if the UFO is now over Tehran - he has less distance to travel than the first F-4).

“The jet-UFO chase just described occurred over a period of about 10 minutes”

Originally Posted by Puddle Duck

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.

Well the key word here is “chase” …but you are radically extending the time frames by underestimating the speeds and overestimating the distances involved!

The first F-4 flies out to meet the UFO, plays around with it for some (obviously short) time before the UFO then beats him back to the city. Meanwhile the second F-4 will have made a good distance toward both in that time but:

“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 same sort of saltatory (jumping) motion that Pirouzi had seen when he first saw the object.”

So actually, by the time the second F-4 closes on the object we can deduce where he was in relation to Tehran from the following statements:

“The pursuing F-4 continued on a course to the South of Tehran”

(Routing Slip)

”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.”

Remember the first F-4 was to the NORTH of Tehran and the UFO beat him back to Tehran (meaning the UFO was heading south generally back toward the second F-4). So the second F-4 obviously finally locked onto the UFO somewhere to the south of Tehran, and was by then heading east (toward the Afghan border).

Originally Posted by Puddle Duck

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.

Huh? Oh… of course … invasions of controlled Iranian airspace by unknown flying objects are just humdrum events to colonels!

Originally Posted by Puddle Duck

#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..

Pure misinformation! Ughh! The distances are all wrong. The timing is all wrong. See above and DO a little accurate research.

“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”

Originally Posted by Puddle Duck

“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.

Top speed?

“Despite the imposing dimensions and a maximum takeoff weight of over 60,000 lb (27,000 kg), the F-4 had a top speed of Mach 2.23 and an initial climb of over 41,000 ft/min (210 m/s). Shortly after its introduction, the Phantom set 15 world records, including an absolute speed record of 1,606.342 mph (2,585.086 km/h), and an absolute altitude record of 98,557 ft (30,040 m). Although set in 1959–1962, five of the speed records were not broken until 1975 when the F-15 Eagle came into service.”

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-4_Phantom_II)

Who’s dreaming now? Are you really a former F-4 pilot?

“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.”

Originally Posted by Puddle Duck

Perhaps he meant westward. It seemed that they were heading east at the time. There is not enough info to be sure though.

There IS enough info and YES, it should have been westward.

“ 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..”

Originally Posted by Puddle Duck

There are a lot of ellipsi. What is missing?

What’s missing? Perhaps the “ellipsi” merely denote time passing between the pilot’s statements? So nothing missing at all. Assuming a conspiracy here are we?

Originally Posted by Puddle Duck

They are still out east of Tehran…

Actually… southeast.

Originally Posted by Puddle Duck

…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.}

The UFO was “intensely bright”, so seeing it would have presented no problem at all! And remember also there was a “backseater” whose job in an F-4 is to do exactly that… to keep an eye out and to track ”bogeys”. I would have thought a former F-4 pilot would have known that much at least… are you really a former F-4 pilot? Or just saying so to get our attention?

You mean the F-4 is radar “blind” in all directions except directly in front? I find that hard to believe.

How do you know there were any jets that COULD be scrambled from Babolsar on the night in question?

Originally Posted by Puddle Duck

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.

This is all “argument from ignorance”. Unfounded supposition. Besides your timing does not match the facts of the case! This is pure garbage in other words.

“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”

Originally Posted by Puddle Duck

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.

From the Routing Slip:

”The object and the pursuing F-4 continued on a course to the south of Tehran when another brightly lighted object, estimated to be one half to one third 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 rate of speed…”

We KNOW he was at about 25nm from the UFO and quite obviously a “launch” WAS apparent!

The pilot tried to fire an AIM-9 missile but at that instant he lost instrumentation.
[INDENT”At this point the pilot initiated a turn and negative G dive to get away…”[/indent]
Why? His solution was to avoid confrontation. Remember he had just lost ALL instrumentation including communications – so what do YOU want him to do? YOU want him to act as if he had all his instrumentation still working perfectly and continue to engage! No thanks! (Says the pilot).

“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.”

Originally Posted by Puddle Duck

“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.

This is all just nonsense supposition! Arguments from ignorance!

“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.”

Originally Posted by Puddle Duck

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.

Then Routing Slip states the area where the third object went down was a dry lake bed and it “cast a very bright light over an area of about 2-3 kilometers”.

The FACT that the INS fluctuated is of significance by itself.

Originally Posted by Puddle Duck

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.

From the Routing Slip:

“…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 10m) with bright steady lights on each end and a flasher in the middle. When queried the tower stated there was no other known traffic in the area.”

Bolding mine. Rr.

Besides, I have NEVER seen an aircraft at night with “wings appearing to be a cylinder” (and the rest of your description) and I live under a flight path in an urban area where we get up to 20 planes per hour going over at night (of all shapes and varieties)! Who ARE you anyway… you obviously are not familiar with how planes look at night!

<snip a lot of irrelevant information about electrical systems>

Originally Posted by Puddle Duck

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?

“Something odd happened.” You think?

“Something missing from the story” Yes, we don’t have a lot of information that it would be useful to have. There is no doubt about that. But the information we DO have is rather startling in the story that it tells.

Originally Posted by Puddle Duck

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.

It is always dangerous to rely on Wikipedia in such matters. For example:

Originally Posted by Puddle Duck

“So at this time, Jafari was not a Col. but a Lt. Considering that he was a new guy…”

Jafari states: “At the time I was squadron commander.” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJydT3AZ370). It hardly needs pointing out that a “squadron commander” is NOT a “new guy”! Again your arguments from ignorance are simply appalling!

Originally Posted by Puddle Duck

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.

“munged information”? No, there are clear statements as to what occurred. Many people have put a lot of research into this event. If you choose to ignore that research and have not yourself even conducted the necessary basic research into this case to be familiar with it then you are in NO position to comment.

I have shown in the above the fallacy of your “arguments from ignorance”. You have simply made use of wild and unfounded speculation. Even getting the basics such as the top speed of an F-4 wrong! And this from a supposed former pilot of them! You have misrepresented the times, speeds, distances and directions involved. The ONLY thing that you got right was the fact that the F-4 can fly without its avionics – but that is common knowledge and we do not need a “former pilot” to tell us that.

Your assessment is simply speculative misinformation and has now been shown to be so. Next time you should at least do some basic research into the subject, perhaps then you will not have to rely on unfounded speculation and misapprehensions about the facts in the case.

[wollery]

Originally Posted by Rramjet

I have shown in the above the fallacy of your “arguments from ignorance”. You have simply made use of wild and unfounded speculation. Even getting the basics such as the top speed of an F-4 wrong!

You really need that course in reading comprehension.

He pointed out that the top speed was compromised by the external fuel tanks that were standard for air-to-air missions, which this most certainly was.

Without the external fuel tanks the F-4 has a top speed of Mach 2.23. With them its top speed is severely reduced.

Do you know anything about aerodynamic drag?

[Marduk]

Originally Posted by wollery

Do you know anything about aerodynamic drag?

or indeed, aircraft generally, you should also note that no one here is bothering to read your long laborious posts full of vitriol and nonsense any more, you are in effect speaking to an empty room

and its you that caused that complete lack of interest, no one else.

[Rramjet]

So, to sum up the Iranian (Tehran) UFO case…

We have in this case a UFO that is obviously performing outside the boundaries of what we take to be the limits of the natural and technological world (shape-shifting, splitting apart and rejoining, “jumping” locations, etc).

Thus it is no mere UFO (as was the Rogue River case). It is “alien” to the known world – thus demonstrably an “alien” craft of some sort.

Interestingly the UFO was obviously performing under intelligent guidance (fleeing, affecting instrumentation, and chasing behaviours, etc).

Now the fact that the UFO is an “alien” craft performing under intelligent guidance does not allow us to conclude there were “alien” occupants in the craft (there were no “beings” sighted). And most definitely NOT ET. But it certainly forms another link in the chain of evidence that is bringing us inexorably closer to an “aliens” explanation for UFOs.

So, first I showed that “UFOs exist” (Rogue River).
Then I have shown in the Iranian case that “alien” craft exist.

You have asked me to supply the evidence for my contentions and so far that is exactly what I have done. In just the presentation of two cases we can now draw the conclusion that “alien” craft exist.

Shall we move on?

[GeeMack]

Originally Posted by Marduk

or indeed, aircraft generally, you should also note that no one here is bothering to read your long laborious posts full of vitriol and nonsense any more, you are in effect speaking to an empty room

and its you that caused that complete lack of interest, no one else.

Well as long as he's just rerunning all the arguments from ignorance and incredulity he's spouted before, there's really no need to read it all again. A quick skim will do. After all, we've successfully shown that mundane explanations could apply to every sighting and incident he's brought up so far.

[Rramjet]

Originally Posted by wollery

You really need that course in reading comprehension.

He pointed out that the top speed was compromised by the external fuel tanks that were standard for air-to-air missions, which this most certainly was.

Without the external fuel tanks the F-4 has a top speed of Mach 2.23. With them its top speed is severely reduced.

Do you know anything about aerodynamic drag?

Do YOU know anything about whether the F-4s in question were using external tanks on the night? After all, this was most definitely NOT a "standard" mission - it is laughable for you to even contend that it was! The chances are they would not have the external tanks on... and there are lots of good reasons to suppose that. I am sure Puddle Duck could tell you the reasons.

Aerodynamic drag? How do you know WHAT the top speed of an F-4 with the external tanks on is (apart from Mach 2.23)? You don't of course...you are merely making unfounded assumptions.

[Rramjet]

Originally Posted by GeeMack

Well as long as he's just rerunning all the arguments from ignorance and incredulity he's spouted before, there's really no need to read it all again. A quick skim will do. After all, we've successfully shown that mundane explanations could apply to every sighting and incident he's brought up so far.

Oh? The please DO explain to us all precisely WHAT mundane explanation you have for the Iranian UFO. You can't? Huh!

[wollery]

Originally Posted by Rramjet

Do YOU know anything about whether the F-4s in question were using external tanks on the night? After all, this was most definitely NOT a "standard" mission - it is laughable for you to even contend that it was! The chances are they would not have the external tanks on... and there are lots of good reasons to suppose that. I am sure Puddle Duck could tell you the reasons.

Do you know that it didn't have external tanks? Why do you state that "chances are they would not have the external tanks on"? What do you know about F-4 operational procedures at the time?

If using external tanks was standard procedure for an F-4 in air-to-air I would expect that most of the F-4s were already fitted with these tanks on the ground, since air-to-air missions would be more likely. Oh look, I actually provided a rational reason for my contention.

Quote:

Aerodynamic drag? How do you know WHAT the top speed of an F-4 with the external tanks on is (apart from Mach 2.23)? You don't of course...you are merely making unfounded assumptions.

I know that anything big attached externally to the aircraft will increase the drag, thus reducing the top speed. It would also add to the weight, increasing the power to weight ratio, further reducing the performance.

Since the top speed for an unladen F-4 is Mach 2.23 it would be impossible for a fully laden F-4 to make Mach 2.2.

[Patricio Elicer]

Originally Posted by Rramjet

In just the presentation of two cases we can now draw the conclusion that “alien” craft exist.

We?

Come on!, speak for yourself. Though I'd love to see the evidence to draw that conclusion, I prefer to stick to the real world. And in the real world there are no aliens so far, like it or not.

[GeeMack]

Originally Posted by Rramjet

Oh? The please DO explain to us all precisely WHAT mundane explanation you have for the Iranian UFO. You can't? Huh!

You'd have to demonstrate that your reading skills are sufficient to understand it, otherwise why bother. Too many people have tried to explain things to you, and you continue to misunderstand. By the way, did you get an answer back yet from the principal there at your high school about that remedial reading program I suggested?

[Marduk]

Originally Posted by Rramjet

Oh? The please DO explain to us all precisely WHAT mundane explanation you have for the Iranian UFO. You can't? Huh!

I already posted you a link to the stealth blimp, did you miss it ?
want me to post it again ?

[ferd burfle]

Originally Posted by Rramjet

There is some good information in what Puddle Duck posts, but equally there is some plain old garbage! In other words it is “misinformation” at its worst. Good information mixed in with bad, opinion with fact, (all under the “expert” guise of an former F-4 pilot) - and no way to tell them apart without extensive refutation that might well run into many times the length of the original post! Ughh!

Rramjet:

a)Puddle Duck made it clear he was speaking to the aspects of the story involving operation of the F-4
b)Puddle Duck is a former F-4 pilot. That would make him in fact an expert on the operation of the F-4. As opposed, for example, to someone who has no idea what "military power" means. Please note that appeal to authority is not a fallacy when someone actually is an expert on the topic under discussion

So your accusation reflects either abysmal reading comprehension or blatant dishonesty or both.

ferd

[Access Denied]

Originally Posted by Rramjet

And this from a supposed former pilot of them!

Keep it up Ramjet, if I was an alien hugger I think I'd be wishing for a better spokesperson....

(or maybe not)

Originally Posted by wollery

Since the top speed for an unladen F-4 is Mach 2.23 it would be impossible for a fully laden F-4 to make Mach 2.2.

You know I thought this thread seemed familiar (Groundhog Day?) but I couldn’t quite place it till now...

Bridgekeeper: What... is the air-speed velocity of an unladen swallow?

[Rramjet]

Just reinforce the point about how little Puddle Duck actually knows the subject:

Originally Posted by Puddle Duck

”…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.”

We have at (http://www.iiaf.net/aircraft/jetfighters/F4/f4.html) The official Iranian Airforce site - the following list of F-4 bases.

*1st Tactical Air Base , Tehran (Mehrabad)
Two Squadrons F- 4E
One Squadron RF- 4E Recon
*2nd Tactical Air Base , Tabriz
Three Squadrons F- 4 E
*3rd Tactical Air Base , Hamadan ( Shahrokhi)
Three Squadrons F- 4 E
*6th Tactical Air Base , Bushehr
One Squadron F- 4 E
Two Squadrons F- 4D
*7th Tactical Air Base , Shiraz
One Squadrons F- 4 E
*9th Tactical Air Base , Bandar Abbas
One Squadrons F- 4E
*10th Tactical Air Base , Chabahar
One Squadron F- 4 E

Hmmm…what? No Babolsar…? But I thought he knew what he was talking about!

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Originally Posted by Rramjet

So, to sum up the Iranian (Tehran) UFO case…

We have in this case a UFO that is obviously performing outside the boundaries of what we take to be the limits of the natural and technological world (shape-shifting, splitting apart and rejoining, “jumping” locations, etc).

Thus it is no mere UFO (as was the Rogue River case). It is “alien” to the known world – thus demonstrably an “alien” craft of some sort.

Interestingly the UFO was obviously performing under intelligent guidance (fleeing, affecting instrumentation, and chasing behaviours, etc).

Now the fact that the UFO is an “alien” craft performing under intelligent guidance does not allow us to conclude there were “alien” occupants in the craft (there were no “beings” sighted). And most definitely NOT ET. But it certainly forms another link in the chain of evidence that is bringing us inexorably closer to an “aliens” explanation for UFOs.

So, first I showed that “UFOs exist” (Rogue River).
Then I have shown in the Iranian case that “alien” craft exist.

You have asked me to supply the evidence for my contentions and so far that is exactly what I have done. In just the presentation of two cases we can now draw the conclusion that “alien” craft exist.

Shall we move on?

Ok.

So move on to Rendlesham where you'll insist, based on the tall tale told by someone who was hypnotized three times to recover his memories of the spacecraft-in-the-forest (with the story getting better every time), that it was all true.

And Betty and Barney Hill with their story of missing time that can be easily shown to not be missing because they drove home about as fast as anyone could drive that route home and missed the lighted tower on the mountain that anyone can see at night,

And Lonnie Zamora's UFO that was a hot air balloon complete with a large hole in the bottom.

And Arnold's flying saucers that flew exactly like pelicans heading south.

There that covers a couple or two.

What's next?

And by-the-way -- Blimp and National Enquirer "story".

^MAX

[Rramjet]

Originally Posted by ferd burfle

Rramjet:

a)Puddle Duck made it clear he was speaking to the aspects of the story involving operation of the F-4
b)Puddle Duck is a former F-4 pilot. That would make him in fact an expert on the operation of the F-4. As opposed, for example, to someone who has no idea what "military power" means. Please note that appeal to authority is not a fallacy when someone actually is an expert on the topic under discussion

So your accusation reflects either abysmal reading comprehension or blatant dishonesty or both.

ferd

You seem to be assuming an awful lot here. How do YOU know he actually WAS an F-4 pilot?

Even IF he was a pilot, then that gives him the expertise to speak ONLY about the F-4 - but certainly NOT the expertise to criticise ANY other aspect of the case! As soon as he leaves his field of expertise (the F-4), then he is in no better postion than any other lay person to speak on the topic at hand.

If you notice he spent most of his post OFF the topic of the F-4, and there he has been shown to be both inaccurate and "under-prepared" (to put it nicely).

I suppose YOU can tell me the definition of "military power" during an F-4 take-off? No? Huh!

[Marduk]

readers please note
Excessive use of CAPITALS in the middle of a rant is a sign of impending break down,
please make your way carefully to the lifeboat stations and put on your lifejackets.
thankyou for your assistance in abandoning this sinking ship

[Marduk]

Originally Posted by Rramjet

Just reinforce the point about how little Puddle Duck actually knows the subject:



We have at (http://www.iiaf.net/aircraft/jetfighters/F4/f4.html) The official Iranian Airforce site - the following list of F-4 bases.

*1st Tactical Air Base , Tehran (Mehrabad)
Two Squadrons F- 4E
One Squadron RF- 4E Recon
*2nd Tactical Air Base , Tabriz
Three Squadrons F- 4 E
*3rd Tactical Air Base , Hamadan ( Shahrokhi)
Three Squadrons F- 4 E
*6th Tactical Air Base , Bushehr
One Squadron F- 4 E
Two Squadrons F- 4D
*7th Tactical Air Base , Shiraz
One Squadrons F- 4 E
*9th Tactical Air Base , Bandar Abbas
One Squadrons F- 4E
*10th Tactical Air Base , Chabahar
One Squadron F- 4 E

Hmmm…what? No Babolsar…? But I thought he knew what he was talking about!

you complete tard, Babol Sar is the name of a city which has several iranian air bases

what you didn't know that, But I thought you knew what you were talking about!

Originally Posted by Rramjet

You seem to be assuming an awful lot here. How do YOU know he actually WAS an F-4 pilot?

because he has something you're lacking
credibility

[Access Denied]

Originally Posted by SnidelyW

Having the guy who designed the U-2 see something he doesn't recognize as an aircraft (and still keep his job) seems to cement the entire concept of UFO's.

How do you figure? (in general and the lose his job part in particular)

Are you aware Charles B. Moore (of Project MOGUL and Roswell debunking "fame”) saw a UFO?

[and so have I… and no, I still don’t know what I saw]

[ferd burfle]

Originally Posted by Rramjet

You seem to be assuming an awful lot here. How do YOU know he actually WAS an F-4 pilot?

Well, first and foremost, he said he was . But as a skeptic, I also noticed that his post was chock-full of the sort of detail I would expect an experienced military pilot to know.

Quote:

Even IF he was a pilot, then that gives him the expertise to speak ONLY about the F-4 - but certainly NOT the expertise to criticise ANY other aspect of the case! As soon as he leaves his field of expertise (the F-4), then he is in no better postion than any other lay person to speak on the topic at hand.

If you notice he spent most of his post OFF the topic of the F-4, and there he has been shown to be both inaccurate and "under-prepared" (to put it nicely).

I reread his post and this is most certainly not the case. His post discussed the F-4, it's flight configuration and military flight operations, all of which he has direct knowledge and experience of. He said he wasn't going to try to ID the bogey and he didn't.

Quote:

I suppose YOU can tell me the definition of "military power" during an F-4 take-off? No? Huh!

Well, actually, with no Googling at all I think I can give a pretty good definition. It means to use the engines' thrust without using the afterburners. So "full military power" would be the maximum authorized power but without afterburners. Pilots please correct me if I'm wrong.

ferd

[Jocce]

Originally Posted by Rramjet

Puddle Duck seems to have missed the fact that there exists the Routing Slip (McKenzie) and the Memorandum-for-the Record (Mooy) and also the statements by Jafari (the pilot of the second F-4) – and MUCH more besides!

How do you know he has missed that?

Originally Posted by Rramjet

We don’t have access to the “tower tapes” but there is an excellent analysis of the radar information here: (http://www.narcap.org/reports/006/na...gh_12-8-02.pdf) (pp. 125-149) May I suggest you read the article and I will look forward to you opinion then.

And it's probably possible to get hold of a menu for the best restaurant in Teheran. Exactly what has radar analysis to do with tapes of plane/tower communication? You just jumble the issue with unrelated comments. I think it's on purpose by now.

Originally Posted by Rramjet

Now Puddle Duck is claiming something he is entirely ignorant of - SOP at a foreign airfield.

There is no reason to belive that SOP's differ because they emanate more from plane prestanda than personal preference. Also, if you understood what density altitude of 8000 feet means at takeoff you would also understand how this makes it even more unlikely. But then again, you're not a pilot.

Btw, you're trying to use a narrative as evidence again. It's a gdmn story, not evidence.

Originally Posted by Rramjet

Besides, his statements on the matter are actually contradictory:

Beg ‘pardon? “Always” and then “only a couple of times”? and “…military power take off…”? …whatever that means…

Puddle Duck explained why he has, on a few occassions made a military power takeoff. It's not at all contradictory. You question his expertise while in the same sentence saying you don't know what military power is? It's laughable.

Originally Posted by Rramjet

There were THREE separate “beeper” sources in the incident.
<snip>
Now I don’t know much about beepers, but given all that occurred that night and given that (as Puddle Duck says) “beepers don’t normally just fall out of planes”, then the reasonable assumption would be that it had something to do with the UFO…

Hmm, ok. Given that you don't know so much about beepers (either). How do you come to the conclusion that it probably has something to do with the UFO? Unfounded speculation at work son.

Originally Posted by Rramjet

Moreover, the F-4s (at least the second one) obtained a radar lock on the object and would have been able to relay the data back to base.

And this is in your expert opinion?

Originally Posted by Rramjet

“He was probably told this was an ID pass.”
Pure speculation. We have no idea WHAT “he” was told!

You have two options. Search and destroy or ID. What do you think is more reasonable?

Originally Posted by Rramjet

”… he probably climbed to about 20k ft MSL till he got to within 50-40 miles of the bogey, then descended.”

Pure speculation again…

As a contrast to your own speculations, this is an educated opinion from an experienced pilot. It holds far more weight than your ramblings.

Originally Posted by Rramjet

Pure speculation again… and interestingly (F-4) Cruise speed: 506 kn (585 mph, 940 km/h) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-4_Phantom_II)

Interesting that wikipedia suddenly is a trustworthy source. You seem to dislike it quite a bit when it goes against your belief system.

Originally Posted by Rramjet

you have obviously read nothing about UFOs. This is a trademark feature of MANY UFO reports (the ability to get from A to B “instantaneously” – or at least unbelievably quickly). There is nothing unusual about this if you had taken the time to understand the literature on UFOs. This is relatively NORMAL UFO behaviour. Besides we know from the second F-4 that he had trouble getting a lock on it because it was changing location so rapidly.

ROFLMAO. SOP of UFO's. You're really funny.

Originally Posted by Rramjet

Finally, a statement by Puddle Duck about which he is actually qualified to comment on! Well done. It took a long time to produce, but there we have it. The contention is within his qualified experience and thus we cannot reasonably dispute it.

I find this quite amusing. So far Puddle Duck (and in much of what follows) has been recalling and commenting on events from over 30 years ago in which he was not involved using “arguments from ignorance” – the very things the “skeptics” berate me for – yet when Puddle duck DOES this, his claims are suddenly “golden” and he is congratulated for making them!

What is really funny is that you don't even realize what he's talking about. Your ignorance is only overshadowed by your huge ego. An expert opinion will always be worth more that uneducated guesses.

[Akhenaten]

Originally Posted by Rramjet

You seem to be assuming an awful lot here. How do YOU know he actually WAS an F-4 pilot?

There's a simple test that can be applied for the purpose of this thread - if Rramjet doubts something, then it can be taken as proven. It's a very reliable test.

Originally Posted by Rramjet

Even IF he was a pilot, then that gives him the expertise to speak ONLY about the F-4 - but certainly NOT the expertise to criticise ANY other aspect of the case! As soon as he leaves his field of expertise (the F-4), then he is in no better postion than any other lay person to speak on the topic at hand.

A person with only one area of expertise has a distinct advantage over a person with none at all. That's why your 'rebuttal' is such a joke.

Originally Posted by Rramjet

If you notice he spent most of his post OFF the topic of the F-4, and there he has been shown to be both inaccurate and "under-prepared" (to put it nicely).

You wish. Your arguments are childish and childlike prattle and you lack the qualifications to make judgements about other peoples' input to this thread. It's demonstrated every single time you post, and yet you persist. Do you not realise, even now, that nobody believes a word you type?

Originally Posted by Rramjet

I suppose YOU can tell me the definition of "military power" during an F-4 take-off? No? Huh!

A/B to "Full", throttle past the detent to "Max", pull back on the stick until your socks roll down.

How would this be relevant, groundling?

[amb]

Originally Posted by kritter

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?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,...ech/innovation