UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

Status
Not open for further replies.
Rramjet said:
As for the take off speeds. Again I reiterate. We have the “man on the ground” (electronics engineer Henry) telling us that the jets took of WITH afterburners - and also that was a “rare” occurrence.
Click to expand...


So is an Iranian named "Henry" :p
 
jhunter1163 said:
Gotta step up your Photoshop game there. I'd have done it myself but my Photoshop-fu is weak.
Click to expand...

alternatively I could just post © whenever I type anything

© © © ©

I did this one with someone in mind
belief.jpg

hehe

© © © ©
:D
 
I can't remember said:
I refuse to deliberately blind myself to potentially clarifying information about the case if it exists by restricting myself to a single documentary source (excellent though it is). If you have some sort of beef with Dr. Marduk-beh, then take it up with him, but this forum is open to ALL the evidence available.
Click to expand...


Or something.
 
Last edited:
Astrophotographer said:
This is so bogus a claim it is not funny. The passive radar only produces an alert that the aircraft is being scanned by radar and that is it. The "mirrors" may or may not have been on the aircraft. Making a range estimate on a point source is just plain ridiculous. The range data and claims of estimating through a mirror are just plain dumb.
Click to expand...
Remember there are TWO people in an F-4. Utilising all the information and instrumentation available to the pilot and the backseater, it is certainly possible to estimate the range of the UFO coming from above and behind them. Remember Jafairi initially dived to avoid the UFO and he was 25nm from it (or less) when he did so. The UFO would then have come from behind and ABOVE him to catch him up. There is no difficulty here. You are simply not aware of all the facts in the case.

Astrophotographer said:
As for him being an experienced pilot in 1976, I would like to see the evidence. What were his flying hours in an F-4? What was his rank at the time? Was he a squadron commander at the time or not? Show the evidence to support this claim.
Click to expand...

Jafari was squadron commander at the time with the rank of Major. He retired as a General. (http://www.ufodigest.com/news/1107/ufoconference3.html and http://www.ufodigest.com/news/1107/ufoconference4.html ... look at the caption of the F-4 pics) You don't get to be a squadron commander without a great deal of flying experience.

ETA: At the same Press Club address (which is "within" a large article about the press conference, written by Robert Morningstar) and further down the page second page you can learn about another "dogfight," this time in Peru and the pilot was flying a Sukhoi SU-22 a Russian fighter jet! This report is perhaps even better than the Iranian case because the pilot “fired a the object" and this didn't phase it apparently! It was a long duration, daytime sighting my many Peruvian Air Force personnel.
 
Last edited:
Rramjet said:
It was a long duration, daytime sighting my many Peruvian Air Force personnel.
Click to expand...

The parallels with the Campeche incident are amazing! Have you debunked the fallacious "oilwell fires" explanation for Campeche yet? Those trained military observer pilots didn't describe any oilwell fires, did they?
 
Rramjet said:
Remember there are TWO people in an F-4. Utilising all the information and instrumentation available to the pilot and the backseater, it is certainly possible to estimate the range of the UFO coming from above and behind them. Remember Jafairi initially dived to avoid the UFO and he was 25nm from it (or less) when he did so. The UFO would then have come from behind and ABOVE him to catch him up. There is no difficulty here. You are simply not aware of all the facts in the case.
Click to expand...


Doesn't matter if there are 17 people in the cockpit. They don't have anything to tell them what you seem to think they should know.

As for awareness of facts, your posts speak for themselves, and the talk is all very negative so far.


Rramjet said:
Jafari was squadron commander at the time with the rank of Major. He retired as a General. (http://www.ufodigest.com/news/1107/ufoconference3.html and http://www.ufodigest.com/news/1107/ufoconference4.html ... look at the caption of the F-4 pics) You don't get to be a squadron commander without a great deal of flying experience.
Click to expand...


You know this how?


Rramjet said:
ETA: At the same Press Club address (which is "within" a large article about the press conference, written by Robert Morningstar) and further down the page second page you can learn about another "dogfight," this time in Peru and the pilot was flying a Sukhoi SU-22 a Russian fighter jet! This report is perhaps even better than the Iranian case because the pilot “fired a the object" and this didn't phase it apparently! It was a long duration, daytime sighting my many Peruvian Air Force personnel.
Click to expand...


One thing at a time. You haven't made it past blimps yet.
 
Rramjet said:
Remember there are TWO people in an F-4. Utilising all the information and instrumentation available to the pilot and the backseater, it is certainly possible to estimate the range of the UFO coming from above and behind them. Remember Jafairi initially dived to avoid the UFO and he was 25nm from it (or less) when he did so. The UFO would then have come from behind and ABOVE him to catch him up. There is no difficulty here. You are simply not aware of all the facts in the case.
Click to expand...

I am aware that apparently things that are way beyond our technology (according to Rramjet) are not beyond the technology of our radar which it has to be said as a fairly new technology is quite primitive

that tell you anything Roger ?
:D
 
Jocce said:
Like what? I thought we agreed some 30 pages ago that the routing slip is the only official documentation available?
Click to expand...

No, we also have the Initial Memorandum-for-the-Record written by Mooy! And interviews with many of the personell involved including the tower controller Houssain Pirouzi, the pilot of the second F-4 (Jafari), two of the electronic engineers (Henry and Bob), McKenzie, etc, etc… so there is a WEALTH of “official” and first hand accounts to draw information from.

Jocce said:
When an experienced pilot tells you that there are strange things regarding the reported flight data in the story by maccabee I think it would be wise to listen. You never listen to expertice?
Click to expand...

IF that pilot sticks to his area of expertise THEN we might believe him… but even there he has been shown to be in error… so what do you want…? You take the word of anyone who supports your beliefs without so much as a question of reliability of credentials, yet when it comes to people who oppose your beliefs, you mercilessly ridicule their reliability and credentials. Hypocritical in the extreme I suggest.

Jocce said:
That's not mentioned in any official documentation. Stick to the facts or I will draw in Biggles stories again.
Click to expand...

Dr Maccabee stated he interviewed both Henry and Bob (the avionics engineers). THAT is a fact ON the record.

I stated:
”There were indeed three separate “beeper” incidents (as I outlined in my previous post). Since the UFO was in the area AND you say that the legitimate beepers transmit on a specific frequency AND that was slightly different to the frequency of the “beeper” picked up, THEN it could not have been a legitimate beeper and THEREFORE probably something to do with the UFO.”

Jocce said:
Guessing. Stick to the facts please.
Click to expand...

There were three separate “beeper” signals. They were transmitted on a frequency close to but NOT precisely matching legitimate emergency beeper signals. The UFO was in the area. No other air-traffic except those picking up the signals were in the area. The logical inference IS… the UFO has something to do with it.

I stated:
”Yes, the F-4 IS “technically” radar blind in the rear, but since your statements we have discovered the RWR and the cockpit and canopy mirrors that could have been used as aids. It is therefore possible for the pilot (using all the information available to him) to then to report estimated ranges as he did.

Jocce said:
Stick to the facts and stop guessing. Either you show exactly how those range estimates are done or drop the issue.
Click to expand...

How? Remember there are TWO people in an F-4. Utilising all the information and instrumentation available to the pilot and the backseater, it is certainly possible to estimate the range of the UFO coming from above and behind them. Remember Jafairi initially dived to avoid the UFO and he was 25nm from it (or less) when he did so. The UFO would then have come from behind and ABOVE him to catch him up. There is no difficulty here. You are simply not aware of all the facts in the case.

I stated:
”Again you claim the pilot should have acted as if his avionics were NOT out of action. However, I contend that “inverting” the jet in such a situation is something the pilot most certainly would NOT have wanted to do! Remember he is an experienced pilot and “inverting” into a dive on a very dark night without avionics (including no communication with the tower OR with his backseater) is inviting immediate disorientation – NO THANKS says the pilot! Surely you can see that.

Jocce said:
And surely you are qualified to guess how a fighter pilot should handle his plane in certain situations? Seriously Rramjet. How can you pretend to be the utmost authority on every single subject without realizing how absurd that sounds to all of us here? Not to mention how little weight your uninformed opinion carries.
Click to expand...

This is NOT a guess. Go ask ANY pilot and they will tell you that to invert a plane on a dark night with no operational avionics and no communications (internal or external) is INVITING disaster. Disorientation is a very real and practically immediate outcome of such a reckless manoeuvrer. And THIS is just one of the reasons I MUST question Puddle Duck’s credentials.

Jocce said:
There is ONE single official source. The routing slip. We agreed on that already. Stick to what's in it or admit that you're making guesses based on what's written in various internet articles of dubious origin.
Click to expand...

As I already said - we also have Mooy’s Memorandum-for-the-Record and numerous first hand eyewitness interviews, INCLUDING the pilot of the second F-4 AND the tower controller, etc , etc. There is a WEALTH of information to draw on. You just need to do a little more research on the matter is all.

Whereas everyone has concentrated on the jet chase, it should not be forgotten that this is a multiple witness sighting from the ground and from the air. Furthermore, how this event happened should not be ignored. Several civilian witnesses "started this off" by reporting a strange object not far above them -which annoyed or frightened them. Perouzi initially was skeptical about these sighting reports. The skeptics should give him credit for that. Then, as Puddle Duck has suggested, Perouzi "passed the buck" to someone above his pay grade.

Not only the civilians and Perouzi and others at the control tower but also General Yusefi saw the uFO… and this was ALL before the jet chase even began! Clearly there was something over Tehran doing strange things.
 
How do you measure the distance of a distant light source at night while peeking around your shoulder, or looking through a rear view mirror?
 
Marduk said:
I am aware that apparently things that are way beyond our technology (according to Rramjet) are not beyond the technology of our radar which it has to be said as a fairly new technology is quite primitive

that tell you anything Roger ?
:D
Click to expand...

It tells me that we know very little indeed about "alien" technology and that we possibly ignore that fact at our own peril. I suggest research is a logical necessity.

The alternative. You stick your head in the sand and pretend to be a "Flat Earther", taking every opportunity to ridicule and abuse. You present NO argument or evidence of your own. This is not a particularly intellectual or rational response. Your reaction however DOES tell me that YOU are fearful of something - for your reaction is a typical fear response. WHAT are you fearful of ...that I may be RIGHT?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom