UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Rramjet]

Summarising the state of play...

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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)

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:

”…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]

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]

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]

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!

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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?

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/narcap_radcat_textwebsite_MShough_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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

“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?

”… 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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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?

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]

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/0,2933,524997,00.html?sPage=fnc/scitech/innovation