UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

Status
Not open for further replies.
Last edited:
Rramjet said:
There seems to be some argument latterly that I have not presented any evidence or that I have not addressed the issues raised or that I have been somehow arguing illogically or have otherwise been in error in the way I have presented my evidence.

I will therefore spend a little time recapping the cases I have presented so far. I do this in order to show the above contentions to be in error.

The first case I presented was:
Click to expand...

Wow, Rramjet. Although I still don't agree with some of your conclusions* I must sincerely respect and commend you for spending such time and effort to make your arguments as coherent and as detailed as possible. This is something very welcome. Thanks.

*How it seems you argue from ignorance on the unlikeliness of a blimp being present as well your using eyewitnesses as 'evidence'

By the way, I'll return later to your reply to me a few pages back. Not having so many chances to use the internet in some days...
 
A clarification of the Iranian UFO case

I have contended that the Iranian UFO provides (at least partial) evidence that might lead us to a conclusion that "aliens exist" (remembering my definition of "alien" as “Intelligent agencies acting outside the bounds of what we take to be the limits of the natural world”)

Tehran UFO Incident (19 Sep 1976)
http://www.brumac.8k.com/IranJetCase/
http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/ufo/routing_slip_ufo_iran.pdf
http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/ufo/now_you_see.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_Tehran_UFO_incident

I have also provided a list of reasons WHY I think this case is compelling:

First: that the case is well documented (ie: it was not merely "a figment of someone's imagination")
Second: it has Iranian Airforce jets chasing a UFO and THEN being chased by the UFO!
Third: The object itself is ENTIRELY "unusual" (for example shape-shifting ability, ability to split apart and rejoin to name but two)
Fourth: There was radar confirmation of the object as well as multiple witnesses (not to mention the pilots)
Fifth: the UFO(s) was able to affect its' surroundings (ie; the instrumentation and functionality of the fighter jets)
Sixth: The UFO(s) seemed to exhibit intelligent control - (fleeing, affecting, and chasing)
Seventh: I note also that the Iranian UFO exhibited many characteristics that preclude mundane explanations – including its’ shape, speed, maneuverability and the ability to join and split apart. For example: “…as he continued in his turn away from the primary object the second object went to the inside of his turn then returned to the primary object for a perfect rejoin. 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.” Is just ONE example showing human involvement to be HIGHLY implausible. Note also the “intelligent control” point.

Now some have contended that this is all second hand information and thus not of any value.

To show this is not correct, first we have:

“The pilots were interviewed the next day. The Military Assistance and Advisory Group (MAAG), in the person of Lt. Col. Mooy, sat in on the interview of the second pilot who landed at Mehrebad.”
(http://www.brumac.8k.com/IranJetCase/)

And supporting the reliability of the report we have ((http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/ufo/routing_slip_ufo_iran.pdf):

On page 2 of the “Routing Slip” we find under:
“B. RELIABILITY OF INFORMATION” that

“1. Confirmed by other sources” is checked
[and it is checked in preference over 2. Substantially true, 3. Cannot be judged, 4 Doubtful and 5. False]

...and in the very next panel :

VALUE OF INFORMATION, we find that
“1 High (unique, Timely, and of Major Significance)” is checked
[in preference over “ 2. Contributory and Useful, 3. Low (marginal), 4. None (of no use) and 5. Cannot be judged (analyst has no basis for value judgement)].

In other panels there we also find that the information was “Potentially Useful” as “Current Intelligence”.

The section below that is barely legible; however from another source we find that this information too is very interesting.

“As indicated in the above list of recipients of the teletype message, the Defense Intelligence Agency of the U. S. Government got a copy of this teletype, as did the Chief of Staff of the Air Force (CSAF), the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO), the Chief of Staff of the Army (CSA), the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the National Security Agency (NSA), the White House, the Secretary of State (SECSTATE), the Deputy Undersecretary of Defense (DEPSECDEF) and others. Col. Roland Evans wrote an evaluation of the report, dated October 12, 1976. Evans wrote:

1) An outstanding report: this case is a classic which meets all the criteria necessary for a valid study of UFO phenomena
a. The object was seen by multiple witnesses from different locations (i.e., Shemiran, Mehrebad and the dry lake bed) and viewpoints (both airborne and from the ground)
b. The credibility of many of the witnesses was high (an Air Force General, qualified aircrews and experienced tower operators)
c. Visual sightings were confirmed by radar
d. Similar electromagnetic effects (EME) were reported by three separate aircraft [Note: this refers to the electromagnetic interference reported by the jets and the commercial airliner]
e. There were physiological effects on some crew members (i.e., loss of night vision due to the brightness of the object)
f. An inordinate amount of manoeuvrability was displayed by the UFOs”
(http://www.brumac.8k.com/IranJetCase/)

So we can note that the information in the case was derived from first hand accounts and that the information was considered reliable and valuable by the NSA.

Some have contended that the sighting represented “stealth” or other “very fast airplanes capable of jamming and electronic warfare. The SR-71, MiG-25 and Mig-31 all were faster than the F-4s, flew higher and were capable jamming and other electronic countermeasures.” Or that “there is nothing in the report that prevents this from being a manmade craft”.

However, aside from the argument above assuming an irrational incursion into Iranian airspace to “dice” with their fighter jets, thus inviting war if something went wrong, the capabilities of those “technologies” do not include shape shifting or splitting apart and rejoining (to mention but two of the “unusual” characteristics of the UFO). Therefore it would seem highly implausible that so called “secret technology” is an explanation for the sighting.

Some have contended that we should just label it “unidentified” and move on. But again this denies the totally “unusual” characteristics and capabilities of the UFO – and chief among those include intelligent behaviour, with the UFO “avoiding” the fighter jets, then disabling their weapons systems when a Jet was going to fire a missile, then chasing the second jet to do a “flyover” (in full view of many of the witnesses) as the jet was landing. So whatever the UFO was – it was not “merely” a UFO – there was so much more to this case that “merely” sighting an unknown object.

Some have contended that if the UFO was so bright and odd looking, there should have been “calls to the police about it.”

But there were civilian calls… for example

“The first hint of something different came at about 10:30 PM when the airport received a phone call from a civilian in the Shemiran area, about 10 miles northeast of the airport.”
(http://www.brumac.8k.com/IranJetCase/)

Another contended that it was a “cover-up” by the Iranian military to disguise a failure of weapons systems due to poor maintenance. But again this simply denies the facts of the case. For example, from an electronics technician who was woken from sleep by the roar of the jets taking off in pursuit of the UFO:

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

Others have asked, if it was aliens, why bother with such a show at all – they don’t have to prove anything? But that is simply a nonsense because how can we rationally attribute ANY motivation to an “alien”. Simply we cannot.

Now I suggest that this UFO sighting suggests an “alien” presence, due to the extraordinary characteristics and capabilities of the UFO. I have tried to present the evidence above as to why I believe this and have tried to present as many of the arguments against this contention as were posted to this thread. If I have missed any, please post them in response to this and we will move on form there. Thank you.
 
arthwollipot said:
Can there really be any winners?
Click to expand...

I must say...if I honestly look at this 'winner' thing from the point of view of a lurker, or somebody on the fence regarding UFOS/aliens, then some of the latest silly posts from some members here, compared to Rramjet's sober and matter-of-fact tone, are not making the skeptics' position that assuring...

...but no, I personally don't think there can be any winners, except increasing knowledge.
 
Tapio said:
I must say...if I honestly look at this 'winner' thing from the point of view of a lurker, or somebody on the fence regarding UFOS/aliens, then some of the latest silly posts from some members here, compared to Rramjet's sober and matter-of-fact tone, are not making the skeptics' position that assuring...
Click to expand...


I give the lurkers credit for being able to tell the difference between clowns like me and serious posters such as yourself, Astrophotographer, Jocce, wollery and the others.

For my own part, since I already don't know what UFO's aren't, I feel no need to be dragged into the endlessly repeating cycle of discussing rubbish based on self-serving re-definitions of common words and phrases.

I'll content myself using what limited means I have to highlight the poor job Rramjet is doing of making his case, regardless of it's validity.

One particular aspect of this failure I might wish to point out here is that the tone and volume of a poster's contributions don't make them any more useful. I understand that this may vary somewhat from your own view.


Tapio said:
...but no, I personally don't think there can be any winners, except increasing knowledge.
Click to expand...


Yup. When I'm not playing with my silly little lists, this is what I think too, as do the other people humouring me with it.

But enough is enough. One poster here refuses to acknowledge the rules by which everyone else is playing and I find nothing terribly wrong with ridiculing posts which are made with such an arrogant and supercilious attitude.


Cheers,

Dave



PS So, I won't add you to the list of winners then? You ARE doing rather well.
 
Last edited:
Rramjet said:
<drivelsnip>


Others have asked, if it was aliens, why bother with such a show at all – they don’t have to prove anything? But that is simply a nonsense because how can we rationally attribute ANY motivation to an “alien”. Simply we cannot.

<etc.>
Click to expand...


Why hold yourself back Dude, you've attributed every other damn thing to them?
 
Tapio said:
Wow, Rramjet. Although I still don't agree with some of your conclusions* I must sincerely respect and commend you for spending such time and effort to make your arguments as coherent and as detailed as possible. This is something very welcome. Thanks.
Click to expand...


Empty vessels make the most noise. Look at MY posting history.


ETA:

This is probably a good example:

Rramjet said:
I have contended that the Iranian UFO provides (at least partial) evidence that might lead us to a conclusion that "aliens exist" (remembering my definition of "alien" as “Intelligent agencies acting outside the bounds of what we take to be the limits of the natural world”)
Click to expand...


You don't get to have your claims accepted by coming up with your own definitions of things.

People here are quite aware of what 'aliens' are and to insist on this ridiculous new definition is reminiscent of this:


Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.​
 
Last edited:
Rramjet said:
The first point to make is that you are deceptively confusing the results of Dr. Maccabee’s calculations with those of the analysts.
Click to expand...
I did no such thing. I was very clear that I was criticising Dr. Maccabee's calculations. I've questioned your reading comprehension before, and do so again.

Dr. Maccabbee made the calculations he did to make a point that it was possible for the analysts to achieve the reported figures they did (a point I will return to below). However the substantial point to make here is that his calculations in no way reflect on the reliability of the analyst’s calculations.
Click to expand...
I never said they did.

Second, you are broadly correct in saying that we cannot evaluate precisely how accurate the White Sands mathematician’s calculations were - based on the available evidence. However, I will also make some comments about that point below.

Considering your calculations then; the fact that you calculated angular size to four place accuracy shows that you are being too exacting - considering the data that went into the calculation (for example I saw an ad on TV the other day for a face-cream claiming to “reduce the appearance of wrinkles by 62.14%”(!) - this is what I mean by reporting accuracy beyond what the raw data is capable of producing). Perhaps then you are exaggerating the accuracy merely to show Dr, Maccabee is “wrong”. For example, Dr. Maccabee wrote that the resolution angle was about 3 seconds of arc while you "emphatically" point out that it is "actually" 3.4377 arc seconds. Dr Maccabee wrote that 3 seconds of arc corresponds to about 2 1/2 ft at 150000 ft. You “correct” that to 2.8975 ft. Whereas Dr. Maccabee’s approximate ("ball park") type of calculation yields about (30/2.5 =) 12 resolution elements across the image, your "accurate" calculation returns 10.3537 resolution elements.

However, the main point of doing the calculations in the first place is to show that the resolution is greater than the resolution needed to determine shape. One needs only a few resolution elements across the image in two perpendicular directions to get an idea of shape.

I admit that it was “sloppy” of Dr. Maccabee when he merely “squared” the 12 (resolution elements) to get to about 140 resolution elements over the whole image if approximating round. He should have included the pi/4 = 0.785 factor which multiplies (12^2 = 144) yielding 113. But I guess Dr Maccabee wasn't trying for great accuracy in this calculation. Instead he was simply trying to demonstrate that there were plenty of pixels for the analysts to be able to estimate the diameter of an object, if seen as a circle (almost or directly overhead), or the length of its major axis, if it appeared as an ellipse (which they could interpret as a circular object with a horizontal bottom seen from below at some slant angle). I should also point out that the resolution element size might easily have been smaller than the 10 microns (0.001 cm) that Dr. Maccabee assumed, in which case the number of resolution elements would have been greater!
Click to expand...
The point is, as I would have hoped would be obvious, that Dr. Maccabee made serious errors in his approach to the maths. His estimate of the pixel size was much too large, and this was due to his rounding off at every stage. As any good scientist should be aware it is important not to round off until you arrive at a final result. Dr. Maccabee, in his analysis, completely ignores that, and so achieves a result which appears to show that the analysts had well over 100 pixels in total with which to ascertain the shape, when in actual fact they probably had fewer than 80 and maybe as few as 50. That means that the image could have been as little as 8 pixels across. That means that a one pixel difference between semi-major and semi-minor axes corresponds to a difference of more than 10%. If we assume a +/-1 pixel error allowed on each axis that becomes about a 25% difference, and you call a 10% error large!

Dr Maccabee also pointed out that, since the height was given as 150,000 ft, the distance from the camera with the film was farther away if the objects did not pass directly over it (i.e. seen at a slant angle). Since we don't know the angular elevation of the camera with film, we don't know how big the image on the film was. It was probably smaller than 10 pixels in size (diameter of a circle or major axis of an ellipse), but since we have no way of knowing, we have to rely on the men who made the measurements to be reasonably accurate in saying they were about 30 ft in diameter.
Click to expand...
Note, they said about 30ft, and roughly circular

Regardless of the accuracy (or lack of accuracy) of Dr. Maccabee’s calculations, the main point of his White Sands report is that, according to the "boots on the ground," (the guys who grapple with the data) - which is "where the rubber meets the road” - there were objects, evidently unidentified (or they wouldn't have bothered to film them) travelling at some high speed at an altitude of about 150000 ft.
Click to expand...
Except that, apart from overestimating the pixel size of the images by a large margin, Dr. Maccabee has no more idea of the actual errors than we do.

Let us now consider the error margins you make so much of. Suppose the triangulation accuracy was to within about 10% (a large error margin) - so that the error bounds might be on the order of 15,000 ft. This means the objects could have been at an altitude between 135000 and 165000 ft. It MUST be pointed out that the lower altitude is still higher than anything we flew at that time!
Click to expand...
You can suppose all you want about the error margins, but you don't know. These guys were under pressure to get a result. They'd already failed to get any results for the April sightings, something I'm sure their bosses weren't happy with, so why would they not give a result with a larger error margin than usual, rather than admit they couldn't do their job?

Even the high altitude (Skyhook) balloons in those days achieved only 100,000 to 110,000 ft - at which altitude they had large diameters of about 100 ft (the maximum altitudes of Skyhook balloons increased with time. In 1956 a record was set at 144,000 ft. Presently the record altitude for an unmanned balloon is 170,000 ft. set in 1972). You would also think that if someone had launched a Skyhook balloon near the testing area the observers would have known it (after all, they wouldn't want the Shrike missile to hit a balloon!) And high altitude balloons move relatively slowly - and they have a "teardrop" shape. The objects also weren't meteors. Meteors travel too fast.
Click to expand...
Not relevant to the discussion at hand.

Returning to the discussion about the accuracy and reliability of the White Sands mathematician’s calculations, one may note the date on the page reporting the calculations: May 15. It appears then that the mathematical reduction unit had plenty of time to digest the data, meaning of course that it wasn't a report that was rushed out on the same or next day.
Click to expand...
Are you suggesting that it would be more suspect if it were done quickly? I thought these guys were experts, incapable of making mistakes?

Then one can note the dates on the transmittal letter that mentions both the April 27 and May 24 events: that is May 31 and July 13 (I don't know why there are two dates), but again it appears that there was plenty of time to "argue over" the data - if they felt that such argument was necessary - or if they felt that reporting that the objects were 150,000 ft and 30 ft in diameter would make themselves look incompetent or silly.
Click to expand...
I think reporting that these "experts" couldn't get any result at all would make them look more incompetent than reporting a result with a large error margin.

Interestingly the cover letter states that there were two reports: Red#1 and Red#2 also submitted to Dr. Mirarchi (in response to his request for information on the April and May events). Inquiring minds want to know ...what was in those reports!? The same minds also want to know WHERE ARE THOSE REPORTS AND FILMS?!!!
Click to expand...
Yes, having more than the cover note, which contains no error data would be nice. Unfortunately, as I keep pointing out, we don't. So we cannot say what the error margins were.

So, I'll repeat. The errors could have been 1%, or even less. But they could also have been 20%, or 30%. We don't know, and we never will.

The point is that you "rely on the analysts to be reasonably accurate" without any information on how accurate they were. And after all, their actual success rate in gaining any triangulation on these objects is pretty poor, somewhere in the region of 1 success in 10 attempts. That's a pretty low success rate for "experts".

Of course, tracking UFOs isn't what they were experts in, so frankly it isn't too surprising.

And that's your main problem, you keep going on about how these guys were experts at using their equipment, but completely gloss over the point I keep making - that they weren't trained to track UFOs, and had no experience at doing so.
 
Rramjet said:
I have contended that the Iranian UFO provides (at least partial) evidence that might lead us to a conclusion that "aliens exist" (remembering my definition of "alien" as “Intelligent agencies acting outside the bounds of what we take to be the limits of the natural world”)

Tehran UFO Incident (19 Sep 1976)
http://www.brumac.8k.com/IranJetCase/
http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/ufo/routing_slip_ufo_iran.pdf
http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/ufo/now_you_see.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_Tehran_UFO_incident

<snip>

Now I suggest that this UFO sighting suggests an “alien” presence, due to the extraordinary characteristics and capabilities of the UFO. I have tried to present the evidence above as to why I believe this and have tried to present as many of the arguments against this contention as were posted to this thread. If I have missed any, please post them in response to this and we will move on form there. Thank you.
Click to expand...

Two comments:

1. Avoid presenting internet articles as evidence. Of the 4 links you provide I'd be inclined to accept the routing slip as being a reasonable accurate retelling of what happened. It's not a first hand account, but as I said I'd be willing to accept it as a reasonable retelling and discuss it further.

2. Regarding the bolded part above. If you claim that the extraordinary "characteristics and capabilities" of the UFO is indicative of an alien presence then you should provide evidence that aliens actually have access to the necessary technology. Otherwise it's just unfounded speculation and bad logic.
 
Last edited:
Tapio said:
Wow, Rramjet. Although I still don't agree with some of your conclusions* I must sincerely respect and commend you for spending such time and effort to make your arguments as coherent and as detailed as possible. This is something very welcome. Thanks.

*How it seems you argue from ignorance on the unlikeliness of a blimp being present as well your using eyewitnesses as 'evidence'

By the way, I'll return later to your reply to me a few pages back. Not having so many chances to use the internet in some days...
Click to expand...

Thank you for saying so Tapio.

Would that all who disagreed with my arguments did so in the spirit you are taking here. I respect that.

I too am "running on borrowed time" so to speak at the present - so just a brief thanks here, with more to follow (I hope) soon.

Wollery...I will give attention to your post and a reply as soon as I am able.
 
Rramjet said:
<snippage>

Would that all who disagreed with my arguments did so in the spirit you are taking here. I respect that.

<snippage>
Click to expand...


Respect this:


HerdingCats.jpg
 
Jocce said:
Two comments:

1. Avoid presenting internet articles as evidence. Of the 4 links you provide I'd be inclined to accept the routing slip as being a reasonable accurate retelling of what happened. It's not a first hand account, but as I said I'd be willing to accept it as a reasonable retelling and discuss it further.

2. Regarding the bolded part above. If you claim that the extraordinary "characteristics and capabilities" of the UFO is indicative of an alien presence then you should provide evidence that aliens actually have access to the necessary technology. Otherwise it's just unfounded speculation and bad logic.
Click to expand...

1. Yes, I agree that the "routing slip" is the "smoking gun" (to resort to the vernacular) but I disagree that other sources cannot be used also. Be that as it may, I can see your point. I myself have always directed people to explore the original documentation and not place too much weight on secondary sources where they cannot be supported. But there is a time and place for everything if secondary sources are supported by the primary sources...

2. I disagree. My "alien" contention is an exploratory hypothesis based on the fact of intelligent control of a "UFO" with capabilities (such a splitting and rejoining) beyond any known earthly capabilities. I have no doubt also that the retelling of Hossain Pirouzi's statements are indeed an accurate retelling - from an interview conducted with him - of what he and other witnesses observed...(re: "shape shifting"). After all there has been plenty of time for him to offer a retraction if his comments were not reported accurately. There were also newspaper reports, etc. But this again returns to your first point above.

So I am willing to argue the merits of the "Routing Slip".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom