UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[RoboTimbo]

ok I'm calling that a win for me
any disputes ?

Include this for a hat trick:

Finally, if it had been a Soviet incursion, doesn't catsmate1 think that the USAF and the NSA (who wrote up the report in the “Routing Slip” document) would have known about it…? (http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/ufo/routing_slip_ufo_iran.pdf)

 

[Marduk]

Include this for a hat trick:

but I already called on three lies

 

[RoboTimbo]

but I already called on three lies

So you did! How about this:

To believe a Soviet incursion over Tehran with the MiG-25 ignores the initial reports of a hovering object seen by numerous ground witnesses... they reported it to the tower. The object was certainly not moving like a “Foxbat” at that time!

Rramjet isn't familiar with the Russian "cobra" maneuver.

 

[Trystero4]

I'm late to this party so I was wonder if someone could tell me what evidence Rramjet is presenting in the Rogue River and Iranian 'cases'? Eye-witness testimony or something else.

I'll hang up and listen.

 

[Marduk]

So you did! How about this:


Rramjet isn't familiar with the Russian "cobra" maneuver.

Rramjet isn't even familiar with Blimp maneuvers so I'm hardly surprised

 

[Marduk]

I'm late to this party so I was wonder if someone could tell me what evidence Rramjet is presenting in the Rogue River and Iranian 'cases'? Eye-witness testimony or something else.

I'll hang up and listen.

Conflicting anecdotal evidence and nothing else and hes trying to prove that aliens exist from it.

 

[Trystero4]

Conflicting anecdotal evidence and nothing else and hes trying to prove that aliens exist from it.

OK, just checking. Can someone PM me when there's something a little more 'concrete' ? TIA

 

[RoboTimbo]

OK, just checking. Can someone PM me when there's something a little more 'concrete' ? TIA

We've been waiting for 52 pages for something concrete to appear. Doesn't look to be happening anytime soon. Someone told Rramjet that aliens exist and now you couldn't get the idea out of his head with dynamite.

 

[GeeMack]

Geemack, Marduk and RoboTimbo seem to be missing the obvious point here.

There are two ways in which my hypothesis of "aliens" can be supported.

First we can have "positive" proof. That is UFO capabilities and or characteristics that do not match, or are beyond the limits of, any known human technology.

The UFO exhibited what you believe to be characteristics beyond the limits of human technology. That's purely based on your subjective and not fully informed opinion. It seems unbelievable to you, therefore you incorrectly believe it supports your preconceived notion that aliens exist. It doesn't. But thanks for another example of an argument from incredulity. (Are you watching Rramjet's dismal failure to make a good case here, Tapio?)

Second we can have negative proof. That is there are shown to be no "mundane" explanations that describe the UFO in all its capabilities.

Of course a handful of mundane explanations have been clearly shown to be plausible, yet you close your eyes, stomp your feet, and refuse to acknowledge them. That is another fine example of an argument from ignorance. (How about this one, Tapio? See anything about this display of wilful ignorance that makes you think he's making a good case?)

So, you haven't supported your claim that aliens exist using either of your two ways, or by any other means for that matter.

As to your lack of response to the simple yes/no question, "... do you have any evidence that might support your claim that aliens exist," your continued ignorance is noted. How about we try again? Yes or no, do you have any evidence to support your claim that aliens exist, evidence that isn't based on your ignorance, incredulity, or lies? (See how Rramjet handles this, Tapio, and then see if you still think he's making a good case.)

 

[GeeMack]

I'm late to this party so I was wonder if someone could tell me what evidence Rramjet is presenting in the Rogue River and Iranian 'cases'? Eye-witness testimony or something else.

I'll hang up and listen.

No evidence at all. All he has offered are his arguments from ignorance and incredulity. He can't believe the descriptions of the events could fit any answer other than aliens, and he mistakenly believes his incredulity and ignorance is actually evidence to support his claim. Everyone else recognizes his fallacy.

 

[Trystero4]

No evidence at all. All he has offered are his arguments from ignorance and incredulity. He can't believe the descriptions of the events could fit any answer other than aliens, and he mistakenly believes his incredulity and ignorance is actually evidence to support his claim. Everyone else recognizes his fallacy.

Thanks

Apropos of nothing my great uncle founded the Rogue River rooster crowing contest back in the 1950s.

No need for a thread split. Just thought I'd name-drop a little.

 

[Wolrab]

We have also learned that a blimp that routinely flies 300 miles a day cannot fly 190 miles. We now know that despite bases and patrols along the US west coast, blimps are unable to bypass the Rogue River, and that something described in general blimp like terms by eyewitnesses could not possibly be a blimp.

 

[Rramjet]

(…) Finally, the absence of multiple fins or a gondola on the sighted object is consistent with the fading out of detail owing to distance and solar illumination, as has been shown in this thread in photographs and described in some detail (…).

Why do you think that the viewing conditions for seeing the lower fin are worse than for seeing the upper fin - which is not very far above the lower fin? They're both at the same distance from the observer. Do you think that the atmospheric and lighting conditions change that much over a distance from the upper to the lower half of the object, and if so, why? At what distance would the lower fin be invisible while the upper remains visible?

Again, you ignore difficulties with eyewitness testimony. Why is it you blindly accept such testimony? Why are you ignoring what most real scientists recognize? That being that eyewitness testimony is flawed.

As far as probabilities go, why is the possibility of a blimp less probable than a craft of exotic origin that did not come from anyplace on earth? BTW, don't give me the nonsense about you did not say this because if you are taking the witness testimony as 100% accurate (which you obviously do), there is no craft on earth that looks EXACTLY like the drawing. However, if you accept the possibility of human error, it does resemble a blimp. It could also be just a conventional craft seen under conditions that gave the impression of this shape. All are MORE LIKELY than an alien spaceship.

Was the testimony really "sworn"? Was it a deposition subject to perjury or just a report? I think your use of this term is inaccurate.

There is an interesting admission from you here Astrophotographer. That is: “…there is no craft on earth that looks EXACTLY like the drawing.”

If you do not think the witnesses are 100% accurate as reported (including what is reported in the Air Intelligence document - which was the first report - hard to read, but clearly is consistent with the verbal statements made later – and it is in this document that the drawings were originally contained), then at what level of accuracy would you think they could misidentify a blimp? If they were only 90% accurate, would that allow misidentification of a blimp? 80%? 70%?

Moreover, what details would you leave out of the witness testimony in order to make that testimony consistent with a blimp seen to be approaching head on (or nearly head on) and then turning broadside to head south? And if you don't like the scenario of the blimp approaching from the east, turning sharply (but not about its vertical axis!) and then heading southward, what scenario would you prefer?

What are the seeing conditions that would make a conventional craft take on this particular shape? How far away would a blimp have to be to give the witnesses with binoculars the impression that it was pancake shaped with a flat bottom, with a single fin on top (that starts at the centre of the object) and the impression that it could turn about a vertical axis through the centre of the blimp?

As for the testimony being "sworn" - the fact that it was a deposition taken before a government agent provides it that level of commitment (in the absence of a "Do you swear..." preamble to the statements). For example, if you had to make such a deposition before an OSI special agent, especially at that time in history, would you not think that lying to that agent in such a deposition could have actionable repercussions?

 

[fromdownunder]

Why can't we just all agree that UFO's exist, and then Roger Ramjet can move to Phase Two?

Norm

 

[wollery]

Why can't we just all agree that UFO's exist, and then Roger Ramjet can move to Phase Two?

Norm

We all did that a long time ago.

Besides, that's actually all he's got.

If UFO then Aliens is about the sum of his argument.

Of course it requires him to redefine UFO to mean, "Anything that couldn't possibly be explained by anything other than Alien craft", but he sees no problem with that.

 

[Rramjet]

Evidence...

Some have contended that I have offered no evidence in the Iranian UFO case. To counter that unfounded assertion – for I have posted much evidence in the case I will clarify (again) the positions:

The evidence:

Tehran UFO Incident (19 Sep 1976)
(http://www.brumac.8k.com/IranJetCase/)
(Supporting documentation and discussion)
(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)
Parvis Jafri (one of the F-4 pilots) interview
(http://www.iranian.com/main/singlepage/2008/parviz-jafari-2)
Jafari speaking at the National Press Club, Nov, 2007 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJydT3AZ370)
Amusing and enlightening UFO HUNTERS “reconstruction”
( http://www.encyclopedia.com/video/2HSFvZvzK90-ufo-hunters-parviz-jafari-case.aspx)

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

First: That the case is well documented and we have first hand eyewitness accounts.
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 the multiple witnesses, both civilian and military (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.” ss just ONE of many statements 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 (and aside from the pilot interviews that may be viewed at the above mentioned links), 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 on that page of the Routing Slip we also find that the information was “Potentially Useful” as “Current Intelligence”.

The section below that is barely legible on the routing slip; 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.

I have already written:

The following are merely some of the capabilities of the UFO you must account for

“The command post called BG Yousefi, Assistant Deputy Commander of operations. (…) he noticed an object in the sky similar to a star, bigger and brighter. He decided to scramble an f-4 from Bhahrokhi to investigate.”

“Due to its brilliance the object was easily visible from 70 miles away.”

“The size of the radar return was comparable to that of a 7?7 tanker. The visual size of the object was difficult to discern because of its intense brilliance.”

“The light that it gave off was that of flashing strobe lights arranged in a rectangular pattern and alternating blue, green, red and orange in color. The sequence of lights was so fast that all the colors could be seen at once.”

“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 vey fast rate of speed, the pilot attempted to fire an AIM-9 missile at the object but at that instant his weapons control panel went off and he lost all communications (UHF and Interphone)”

“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 her side of the primary object going straight down at a great rate of speed. The f-4 crew had regained communications and the weapons control panel and watched the object approach the ground anticipating a large explosion. This object appeared to come to rest gently on the earth and cast a very bright light over an area of about 2-3 kilometres.”

“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”
(http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/ufo/routing_slip_ufo_iran.pdf)

So we have the splitting apart and “perfect” rejoining, or the “brilliance” of the object, or the rectangular “alternating blue, green, red and orange in color” – “so fast that all the colors could be seen at once”, or the “cylinder” shape, or that the landed part “cast a very bright light over an area of about 2-3 kilometres.” Then there is its nullifying affect on the jets weaponry and communication systems. Or that it “headed toward the F-4 at a great rate of speed”… and this is merely to mention the “mundane” aspects. We still have shapeshifting for example to account for… and much more besides.

So LOTS of evidence then… nothing much in reply… why is that do you think?

 

[Jocce]

Okay. I can see that while it is quite clear that the historical records show that a blimp at Rogue River is implausible (unlikely, improbable, contrary to reason…), whilst ever there remain gaps in the historical record, the skeptics will claim that, no matter HOW long the odds are, the possibility will always remain. Unfortunately the gaps in the historical record are there, and “reasonable inference” it seems is just not good enough for the skeptics.

So, no counterarguments, just sweeping generalizations. *shrugs* seems like it's your tactic when you can't come up with substantial refutations.

That being the case, why don’t we turn to the actual events and the evidence that we DO have – the eyewitness sworn testimony.

Eyewittness testimony<>Evidence

The descriptions of the eyewitnesses DO rule out a blimp.

No it does not and that has been shown over and over again.

For a start there is that top “fin”…. The fact is that NO other fins were reported – even by the witnesses with binoculars. Blimps have four “vanes” used for steering in the horizontal and vertical planes. The UFO only possessed one such fin quite unlike ANY known blimp (and that fin beginning “amidship” – again quite unlike ANY known blimp).

So the simple fact is, that the blimp hypothesis falls down at precisely that point and must therefore be ruled OUT as an explanatory hypothesis.

Because human perception is infallable?

 

[Jocce]

So if you are contending this to be a manmade object then I simply ask again, WHAT manmade object has the capabilities of that UFO(s)?

So if you are contending this to be an alien object then I simply ask again, WHAT alien object has the capabilities of that UFO(s)?

 

[Jocce]

Actually we have an interview with the pilot Parvis Jafri:
(http://www.iranian.com/main/singlepage/2008/parviz-jafari-2)

AND Jafri speaking at the National Press club (Nov 2007)
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJydT3AZ370)

So these are precisely the "first hand accounts" you want me to produce (and I assume you are thus willing to discuss?).

Oh thank you so much! A recent interview with an eyewitness of an event 30+ years ago. That kind of evidence is exactly what is needed to conclusively explain this sighting. Now, if you are contending this to be an alien object then I simply ask again, WHAT alien object has the capabilities of that UFO(s)?

 

[Jocce]

There are two ways in which my hypothesis of “aliens” can be supported.

First we can have “positive” proof. That is UFO capabilities and or characteristics that do not match, or are beyond the limits of, any known human technology.

Second we can have negative proof. That is there are shown to be no “mundane” explanations that describe the UFO in all its capabilities.

ehhh...those two are exactly the same argument worded differently.

In the Rogue River case, we have certainly the positive proof. The UFO characteristics do not match any known human technology. I suggest we also have the negative proof but the skeptics contend a blimp is possible (to which of course I note “possible” does not equate to probable…), nevertheless the case here then rests on the positive proof.

In the Iranian case we have BOTH types of proof. The capabilities and characteristics are certainly beyond the limits of any known human technologies AND we CAN rule out such things as catsmate1 suggested (cutting edge technology…) and also such things as balloons, blimps, meteors, stars or planets, birds, wind blown debris, etc, etc …

Same argument from ignorance as always. I suggest that you move ahead and show that aliens had the technology necessary to exhibit the reported characteristics.