UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Sledge]

Rramjet, you insist that UFOs represent some form of alien intelligence. What is your proof for this?

 

[Astrophotographer]

Astrophotographer chimes in on the same theme “Nobody is stating there is "no evidence" for UFOs. However, what UFO proponents seem to misunderstand is that the evidence presented is just not good enough.”

Then you must point out precisely where and how the evidence in the Tehran and Father Gill cases are “not good enough”. Merely saying so is NOT good enough. Where are the “phantoms” in these cases Astrophotographer?

Well, so far what you have presented with these cases have not been good enough to convince anybody here to change their opinion. In fact, these cases have not changed the scientific community's opinion on the subject. What is so good about this evidence? It is entirely anecdotal. You can not even provide one actual physical record of the condition of the aircraft or the actual radar tapes in the Teheran case. Either your presentation of the evidence fails or the evidence is "not good enough". Presenting evidence of mysteries is not the same thing as providing good evidence as to what the source of these mysteries might be.

 

[RoboTimbo]

On page 79 (and following) of this thread people try to “discuss” cases that are perhaps not conclusive (I say perhaps because I have not researched the cases in question so I cannot be sure – KotA makes some salient points though) yet I note that the discussion of the Tehran incident and critically the Father Gill incident has been “conveniently” dropped. Of course it is easy for the debunkers to point to cases where the evidence is not conclusive, but when it comes to cases where the evidence is conclusive, then they go silent! Typical!

How is it conclusive of anything if it's unidentified? Wasn't the Campeche incident evidence also conclusive of aliens?

 

[Correa Neto]

Am I the only one to find a bit weird that aliens from outside the boundaries of nature are humanoid?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Am I the only one to find a bit weird that aliens from outside the boundaries of nature are humanoid?

You aren't a True Believer in TRUE UFO's.

 

[Nonpareil]

You aren't a True Believer in TRUE UFO's.

He's not Scottish, either.

 

[Marduk]

oh ffs is he back from shock therapy already

 

[Belgian thought]

2. “aliens” (at least beings of SOME sort) (Father Gill case).

Over to you!

Rramjet; "The times you provide matched with the sighting times mean the UFO WAS intitially seen in daylight (especially on the second “night”! "

Can you respond to post #3067 please?

Originally Posted by Rramjet
Artists renditions? Come on, you have to do better than that!

Like this?:

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Concerning the second F-4:

“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…”

If that is not disabled avionics then you are operating in a fantasy world my friend.

You know, I'm going to have to concede that I may well be wrong, and the weapons control system may in fact be referred to as part of the avionics. I believed the term avionics was used to describe the systems which controlled the actual aircraft itself. If that's wrong then I apologise for increasing the level of confusion in this thread.

Having said that, you really can't get away with conflating a failed weapons control panel with a loss of flight instrumentation: The instrumentation and systems used to actually fly the second F-4 were never claimed to be affected. Yet you "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."

Even if the report is accurate, the pilot had his full complement of flight instruments working and believed he was evading a missile. So please explain again why you think the pilot was more afraid of inverting his aircraft than he was of an incoming missile.

And this is before we consider the likelihood that the failed attempt to launch a sidewinder was really just hasty operational error, later blamed on a systems failure as an excuse.

And all of the above is to ignore the pure supposition of your claim that these reported systems failures were not merely real, but were caused by whatever target the aircrew believed they were pursuing.

 

[Marduk]

And this is before we consider the likelihood that the failed attempt to launch a sidewinder was really just hasty operational error, later blamed on a systems failure as an excuse.

If I recall we're still on the paradigm that either it was a pretty standard ECM system,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_countermeasures#Aircraft_ECM
or the pilot was an idiot,
I have seen no evidence either offered or even close to debunking those mundane explanations yet

 

[Toke]

Rramjet, you insist that UFOs represent some form of alien intelligence. What is your proof for this?

The recent UFO over Norway ended up as proff of russian intelligence.

 

[Akhenaten]

You know, I'm going to have to concede that I may well be wrong, and the weapons control system may in fact be referred to as part of the avionics. I believed the term avionics was used to describe the systems which controlled the actual aircraft itself. If that's wrong then I apologise for increasing the level of confusion in this thread.

Having said that, you really can't get away with conflating a failed weapons control panel with a loss of flight instrumentation: The instrumentation and systems used to actually fly the second F-4 were never claimed to be affected. Yet you "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."

Even if the report is accurate, the pilot had his full complement of flight instruments working and believed he was evading a missile. So please explain again why you think the pilot was more afraid of inverting his aircraft than he was of an incoming missile.

And this is before we consider the likelihood that the failed attempt to launch a sidewinder was really just hasty operational error, later blamed on a systems failure as an excuse.

And all of the above is to ignore the pure supposition of your claim that these reported systems failures were not merely real, but were caused by whatever target the aircrew believed they were pursuing.

If I recall we're still on the paradigm that either it was a pretty standard ECM system,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_countermeasures#Aircraft_ECM
or the pilot was an idiot,
I have seen no evidence either offered or even close to debunking those mundane explanations yet

Trustez-moi, gentlehommes.

Between us, Puddle Duck and I know exactly how this stuff works. I'm just waiting on a response to an earlier question of mine to Monsieur le Rramjet.

 

[Belz...]

Burden of Proof : 1
Rramjet: 0

 

[GeeMack]

Right! And that is precisely why we have the term Unidentified Flying Object! That is... we cannot IDENTIFY it.

Wrong. It means it hasn't been identified. It doesn't mean it cannot be identified.

 

[Belz...]

Wrong. It means it hasn't been identified. It doesn't mean it cannot be identified.

Woah. Déjà vu!!

 

[Puddle Duck]

Wowsers! A lot of posts in the last day. Since the following has been hanging fire since the day after Rramjet went on Sabbatical, and he’s back, I’ll throw it up and start reading.


Lets take a look at the no-tank for Air Intercept Alert

Actually Puddle Duck qualified “ID” with a low cruising speed (for an F-4). I merely contended that actually they would NOT have wanted to mess around finding out WHAT the object was…they would have wanted to get out there quickly (hence the Mach speeds reported). Puddle Duck’s option was a leisurely cruise (for an F-4), while the reported facts indicated that the F-4s were actually travelling at high speed. That was my point.

Tell me why they would have taken roughly an extra hour to drop the tanks.
Lets make the assumption of Rramjet that #1 F-1 had no drop tanks on, but went as fast as he could for the intercept. Tehran is at 4,000 ft. and Shahrokhi is at 5,600 ft Could we assume that he flew there at about 10k Ft? If you don’t like that altitude, select another of your choice. The maximum speed he can use is 750 KIAS (see the chart –speed restrictions h ttp://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=312&pictureid=1911 )and is above mach. The bogey is 40 miles north of Tehran when he arrives (actually a mach-1 arrival speed would be logical if he got the message “ the unknown is now departing to the north, push up your speed to get an ID), so it takes him about 12 ½ minutes to get within 25 miles of it. The Combat Fuel Flow for a stabilized level flight with only Sparrows and Sidewinders on is slightly more than 1400 lbs./minute at 10k ft. Doing the calculation for that flight time at 1400 lbs/min, he would burn 17,500 lbs. The F-4 carries 12,000 lbs of fuel internally. Another way of looking at it is almost 9 minutes of flight. Guess how far he has to walk.
And no, 420 knots is not a low speed cruise. What Rramjat got wrong from my quote is that 420 knots is an optimum combat cruise speed. A low cruise speed is 300- 360 knots.


Now let’s look at the burner takeoff.

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.

and

Regarding charts …sorry but the links don’t work so I cannot follow the calculations… AND you make one HUGE assumption … 40C?

You don’t think that 105 degrees F is not a fair temperature for summertime in a high desert? The Great Basin, Mojave, and Sonoran deserts, all get appreciably above that. The news outlets are constantly remarking about the army around Bagdad having to bear 120 degrees plus in the summer. But if you don’t like that one, pick one that you like and do the graphs. I don’t mind.
Since you didn’t do the original graph calculation, I’ll give you the answers. The heavy summer takeoff using burner takes 8,400 ft.. That is pretty much the max distance for a burner takeoff that will be seen there. The same takeoff using mil power takes 20,000 ft. Remember, the runway length is 10,000 ft. I did check the weather there and for middle/late November, the lows are in the mid to upper 20’s. So for a late night heavy weight takeoff, the distance is 11,800 ft. Even using the parameters of the standard air-to-air load, in Aug., which is pretty light at 49,000 lbs, the length is 12,000 ft. The runway is still 10,000 ft.

The Air-to-air load is more of an aircraft requirement that a local procedure. The air-to-air mission is a long range /area interceptor with the requirement to have a minimum time capability to mix it up with any target. There is no reason on god’s green earth to try to turn it into an overweight point defense interceptor like a Fishbed that has a philosophy of shoot and scoot, at the intercept point. You can always jettison the tanks when empty if needed. By dropping the tanks, you are throwing away more than a quarter of your fuel (internal fuel= 12,000 lbs and wing drop tank fuel=4,800 lbs), where if you have to, you are already at altitude and can jettison the empties and still have the extra fuel.

Rramjet, you also keep insisting that because drop tanks are auxiliary devices, that they would be used only in special circumstances. I would be safe in stating that drops are carried on 95%+ of all mission. The very mission criteria of the F-4 argues for carrying drops.


Now let us look at the inverted flight to escape a missile.

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.

and

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.

Rramjet, I have to ask you a few questions

Have you ever been upside down in an airplane?
Have you ever pulled any Gs in an airplane, both positive and negative
Have you ever been in a light plane at night, over or within say 30 miles of a medium sized city and between roughly 5 and 10 thousand feet?​

I’m guessing not, but if you were, please describe your experienced.

This is a fundamental maneuver, and is completely safe even without any avionics because it is a visual maneuver, I repeat visual, not an instrument one. It is commonly called a max rate turn, and in its basic form consists of rolling to a bank angle of 135 degrees and pulling through 180 degrees of direction. This gets you going in the opposite direction in the shortest time & altitude lost, while conserving the most energy. You don’t need any instruments because you are not looking inside, your attention is outside. Once you start it you can vary the bank angle, amount of turn and G loading to get where you want. Any roll in to a standard dive bombing run uses a variation of this. Every one who has flown the F-4 has done it, and I think that every swept wing fighter has it in its bag of tricks. The aerodynamics are the same. Probably a straight wing fighter uses it but I can’t say, because I’ve never flown a straight wing. But the aerodynamics should be the same.
I have done this at least 1000 times during the day and at night at least 200 time, and any other Old-Head has done it as often. As for night time, it is as safe as long as there is any indication of a horizon and there almost always is. If there is not a horizon, then you have to refer to the attitude indicator during the recovery.
Finally, show me exactly where he states that he has no avionics, Read the routing slip again. He states that he lost comm and he lost his missile panel, actually what he said was that he lost his weapons panel, but that is the free fall system and was not being used, so it would be black, and he meant missile panel. Those are two totally different systems.

Doing a negative g dive, to me is much more risky than the roll and pull. While you are negative G, you bring up the accumulated trash that has been lying on the floor for the last five years. Stuff like dirt, gravel, nuts screws, chunks of safety wire, the odd tool or food wrapper, and anything else that isn’t fastened down. It floats around the cockpit and eventually ends up on the canopy. I detest it. It can have fatal results.
As a general rule, the more experienced a pilot, the more he is likely to use a form of the max rate turn and to spurn the negative G maneuver. To have someone use a negative G dive, tells me that he is afraid of the airplane, indicating someone new to the fighter world. Ergo it shows a high probability that Jafari was a Lt. at the time.
Yes, disorientation is a danger, but is fairly minor.

As for Jafari, he was close to Tehran, so he had a fantastic horizon simply by seeing the sky glow from the city. (Any astronomers, is this is the correct term?)

This is from the Maccabee paper.

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.

This from Wiki
{quote] The control tower supervisor, Hossein Pirouzi, told Sightings that the pilot was in a panic with the large UFO on its tail. According to Pirouzi and other controllers, the UFO performed a low-altitude flyby over Mehrabad at about 2200 to 2,500 feet (760 m). It was described as a cylinder-shaped object as large as a tour bus, with bright steady lights on each end and a flasher in the middle[/quote]
This indicates that he was close to the airport, and a relatively low altitude if Pirouze saw the launch and saw it extremely close to Jafari after the turn away.. Meanwhile Jafari is reporting it as 2-3 miles in trail. Note this disparity of Pirouzi in each document.
It also indicates that he was very close to, or over the greater metropolitan area of Tehran, and at a fairly low altitude. And he was close to the UFO since he could see the missile launch and follow its flight toward him.

From Wikipedia

Azarbarzin also said that the copilot got a good look at the UFO when the second F-4 came out of its emergency dive and passed underneath it. He told both Sightings and researcher Dr. Bruce Maccabee the copilot could see the shape, which he said was round like a plate or just like a saucer, with a canopy or cockpit that looked like half a ball bathed in a dim orange or yellowish light, but with no visible crew. [9]

This says that the gib saw a real flying saucer. I’m surprised Rramjet didn’t use this in his arguments.

“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.”

To believe what a public relation release says is naïve.
Minor quibble. This states a max. TO weight of over 60,000 lbs. The dash 1 is the bible for this and it declares the max recommended TO weight to be 58,000 lb. What this means in Air Force-ese is that if you load the plane to over 58,000 lbs. and something happens, your arse is grass, so that is a defacto maximum.
Looking at what the cruising and maximum speeds of an F-4 are, the only correct answer is “it depends”. There are many variables that go into them.
The top speed in this PR release is based on an early C-model airframe using a standard Mach-Run Profile, that used the best airplane they had and tuning it to optimum performance. And for M-2.23 being as fast as it can go, I’ve had birds on FCFs that handily beat that speed.
Here is a chart that shows the indicated airspeed strutural envelope
h ttp://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=312&pictureid=1911
as a clean/Sparrow load limit. By referring to the stores limitation, the empty Fletcher tank is limited to mach-1.6 over 22,000 ft.
(The heavy line that goes up the 750 knot line to intercept the Mach-2.0 line at 30,000 ft and follows it, is the max continuous speed limit) for the airframe.

It gets worse. By looking at this site,
w ww.ejection-history.org.uk/Country-By-Country/iranian_F-4_phantom_losses.htm
(entries are in chronological order. This site also identifies Jafari as a Lt. and his Gib as a 2nd lt. His Gib would be as green as Kermit the Frog.)
I discovered that the Iranians were flying “Slat Es”. Some time in the early ‘70s, the structure of the E-model was modified to put slots across the front of the wing and stabilizer, the purpose to correct a problem that all F-4s had. This allowed extra airflow to pass from the high pressure area on the bottom of the wing leading edge to the lower pressure on top and from the top of the stabilizer to the bottom. This cut the top speed “appreciably” (no memory of the exact numbers even if they were mentioned, it was a long time ago.), and changed the handling characteristics enough for McDonnell and the USAF to declare that anyone flying either the “Slat E”, or the “Hardwing” (which was what the rest of the F-4s were called) could not fly the other version. The USAF decided that top speed was not that important since it was so rarely used, and they could use the extra maneuverability at lower speeds.
The photo below the date of 11Jul80 shows what it looks like on the ground with the front flaps down (look at the leading edge of the outer two sections of the flaps, they stick up above the rest of the wing), and the photo after the date of 19Feb91 shows it in the air. Note that the background shows through the front of the wings on this one.


Backing up and comparing disparities.

Who were the residents calling?
The routing slip says the Command Post.
Pratt and Maccabee say the Control Tower
w ww.cohenufo.org/iran.htm
h ttp://brumac.8k.com/IranJetCase/

For #1-
The routing slip states that he tried to intercept 40 miles north of Tehran, had problems and went home.
Pratt says that he chased the UFO at mach-2, couldn’t catch it and had the UFO beat him back to Teheran by 150 miles.
Maccabee, who used Pratt and edited, says the same thing.

For #2-
The approach
Routing slip says that they got a lock on at 27 miles, decreased it to 25, where the UFO moved away and maintained it.
Pratt says at w ww.cohenufo.org/iran.htm

"The second plane then got within twenty-five to thirty miles of the object and the pilot suddenly reported, 'I've lost all my navigational aids. I cannot get near the object because I've lost every aid I had. What can I do?'

"General Yousefi ordered him to remain over Tehran, circling at fifteen thousand feet. At this time the object was below him. The general could hear all our radio conversations and I was passing on his orders]
and
That is only part of the story, as obtained by John Checkley, then a National Enquirer reporter based in London, and Vahe Petrossian, a freelance journalist then living in Tehran.

He then repeats the routing slip.
This indicates that Pratt is using second or third hand information for part of his story.
Maccabee quotes the routing slip
Jafari at the NPC states that the initial lock on was at 30 degrees left, no range.
Jafari in his interview with a German organization, states that he had a lock at 12 o’clock high, had his gib unlock and relock to ensure they were not looking at a ground return, the new lock was at 26 miles, it decreased to 25 miles and then jumped to 27 miles.
He also indicates that either he or the UFO was about 32,000 ft.
w ww.youtube.com/watch?v=8h7gNIfMUkc ---- Note that there is no transcript, you have to listen.

Between the approach and the attempted shooting
Routing slip- He describes the the colors and activity of the lights, and the shape of the lights on the UFO as being rectangular,. He had to be very close to it to be able to see this. Otherwise it is a point source. Remember, Gen. Youssefi described it as looking like a star, except bigger and brighter (a point source).

The attempted shoot.
Routing slip –

This second object headed straight toward the F-4 at a very 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). At this point the pilot initiated a turn and 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 then returned to the primary object for a perfect rejoin.

Jafari at Nat. Press Club-

Whenever they were close to me, my weapons were jammed and my radio communications were garbled.
and
One of the objects headed toward me. I thought it was a missile. I tried to launch a heat seeking missile to it, but my missile panel went out

Jafari at his German interview –
This is a video with no transcript, so it has to be listened to. My listening paraphrase is from the audio portion. The following is not a real quote, but close.

I saw something bright & half to one third moon size that came down from the UFO and went down below the horizon and shot toward me. I was scared and thought it was a missile. I thought it would take too long to break lock on the main return and relock on the missile so I decided to use the AIM-9. It was coming from below the horizon so I selected the AIM-9 and saw that by that time it was coming up. When I looked at the missile panel I saw that the instruments were fluctuating , the radio had static and there were no lights on the missile panel. I decided to not shoot, thought about ejecting and decided to not eject as I thought I would end up in my parachute in the blast. I decided to make a left turn to get away from the direct collision . At this time the video stops.

Pratt – from the first part of his article. The second part is is a quote of the routing slip

"The pilot decided to come back to land but when the object was about ten miles away he radioed, 'It has divided in two and an illuminated object has separated and is following me! It keeps coming towards me!’
"He swung his jet around in a tight turn and the light followed him, and as they swept over the tower in Tehran the object that was chasing him was by now five hundred feet above and just behind him. I saw the light for the first time, though only for a few seconds.
“Then the pilot reported that the light had gone back and rejoined the main object. This was about fifteen miles away from the control tower and the pilot reported, 'Now they have joined together.'

Two sources say there was an attempted Sidewinder launch and ejection, one doesn’t mention it, and one states that he decided not to launch or eject.
The routing slip says that he lost his comm, but Jafari, during the two talks describes his Comm problem as a garbled radio, and as static in the radio, not a loss. Jafari does not mention intercom in either speech. Pratt doesn’t mention it in the first part of his story.
Pratt says that the launch was 10 miles away. During the German interview, Jafari states that he watched the launch and the “missile” flight. Again a very close range as confirmed by the pass under the “flying saucer” as he dived out.

I think that is enough disparities to list for the moment.

From Jafari’s actions described in the German interview, there is a more prosaic explanation. If you look at the first panel diagram from the f4-1 PDF (w wwmstewart.net/subob/fighters/f4.pdf ), in the lower left corner of the center panel is the “missile control ‘ panel with four vertical action switches in a row, being; power, missile select, arm and interlock. The third one, “arm” is below the plane of the others, so that is good. However the “power” and “missile select” are next to each other and if not looking at them when changing missiles from Sparrow to Sidewinder, the “power” could be easily turned off, and the missile status panel directly above it would go black. I’m not saying that is what actually happened, but it is a definite possibility.
Finally, during this, from the Pratt article, Gen. Azarbarzin states:

but stoutly denied that either pilot was ever ordered to shoot at the UFO.
"Why should we?" he asked. "Would you do that in the United States? It was harmless. No reason to shoot them. We wanted to get as close as we could."

Why would Jafari decide to release any weapons without authorization.?


Rramjet – You have both explicitly and implicitly accused me of arguing from ignorance, arguing from outside known expertise, not knowing local area procedures, not knowing F-4 operational procedures and lying about being an F-4 pilot.

Let us turn this little exercise around, and establish your qualifications. Perhaps you would answer some questions for me, both the ones above and these.
You imply you are a scientist. What is/are your degree(s) in?
Where, when and how did you get your expertise in the F-4?
Where, when and how did you get your expertise in F-4 Operations Procedures?
Where, when and how did you get your expertise in General Iranian Procedures during the ‘70s?
Where, when and how did you get your expertise in Local Area Procedures for Shahrokhi in the ‘70s?
Where, when and how did you get your expertise in Iranian rank structure/ rank for a particular job?
Please provide a biography and/or personnel file for Jafari showing dates he made each of his ranks.
Where, when and how did you get your expertise in various alien technologies?

If you don’t have documented references, please provide some examples that would show your knowledge. I have a sneaking suspicion that your knowledge is deficient in the aviation fields. You have so far shown lack of knowledge in both the aircraft and general operation procedures. Perhaps you should look in a mirror.
Maybe the “University of Google” could help in some of this.

I will be awaiting your answers.

These are I think, all the pages I referenced. The “delete space” instructions apply.​

Jafari-press club-transcript w ww.ufodigest.com/news/1107/ufoconference3.html
German Interview w ww.youtube.com/watch?v=8h7gNIfMUkc
Pratt article based on his National Enquirer article w ww.cohenufo.org/iran.htm
Maccabee “The Iranian Jet Case” h ttp://brumac.8k.com/IranJetCase/
Wikipedia h ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_Tehran_UFO_incident
Iranian losses/ejections w ww.ejection-history.org.uk/Country-By-Country/iranian_f_4_phantom_losses.htm
F-4 pdf w wwmstewart.net/subob/fighters/f4.pdf
Speed restrictions h ttp://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=312&pictureid=1911

 

[Rramjet]

I stated:
RoboTimbo (#3360, p. 84) contradicts earlier an skeptical post by stating that eyewitness evidence WILL convict a murderer. Hypocracy? You bet!

How so? Oh, you didn't read my entire post or you would have had it explained to you, never mind.

It is hypocritical because as I understand the sceptical position as stated in numerous posts, eyewitness evidence is anecdotal evidence and that is NEVER enough (or should NOT be enough) to convict anyone in a capital case. Yet you suggested that it WOULD be enough. Now unless you don’t agree with your fellow skeptics on the issue ( a possibility which you can either confirm or deny) then you are being hypocritical in your approach to the topic.

How much do you know about aircraft instrumentation and avionics?

How did you come by that knowledge?

What I do know about aircraft and avionics I don’t need to expand upon here because all that I need to know for the current point is the accepted definition of “avionics”. That is for example:

Avionics means electronics that are used onboard for piloting an aircraft. Avionics systems enable interaction with aircraft systems including navigation, communication and flight control.
(http://www.airforce-technology.com/glossary/avionics.html)

Or…

1. (used with a sing. verb) The science and technology of electronics and the development of electronic devices as applied to aeronautics and astronautics: Avionics has become even more important with the development of the space program.
2. (used with a pl. verb) The electronic systems, equipment, and other devices so developed: The avionics on this spacecraft represent a new generation of sophistication.
(http://www.thefreedictionary.com/avionics)

Of course we don't ridicule and dismiss the actual existence of UFOs (using the conventional definition).
But we can criticize your 'work' here with ease.

You don’t “ridicule and dismiss” UFOs… oh come on! Pull the other one. That is a primary modus operandi of the (many but not all) skeptics posting (especially) to this thread!

You can criticize my “work” all you want, but it is the evidence contained in the cases I present that you SHOULD be focusing on. I am a flawed individual and my arguments will (and often do) contain flaws. I have consistently asked however that you address the EVIDENCE that I present. I contend that is NOT so readily criticised “with ease”.

Rramjet, you insist that UFOs represent some form of alien intelligence. What is your proof for this?

Not exactly. I have consistently stated that UFOs (in and of themselves) are NOT evidence for alien intelligence. I have consistently stated that UFOs are proof of NOTHING except a lack of mundane explanation which in turn is SUGGESTIVE of a large gap in our knowledge of reality.

Where the “alien” aspect comes into my argument it is with those cases that first STRONGLY indicate intelligent control (eg: the Tehran case) and then those cases where actual “beings” are apparent (the Father Gill case is a gentle step in that direction).

I have stated from the outset that I am trying to build a coherent body of evidence that inexorably leads toward an “alien” conclusion. Beginning with “mere” UFOs and working through cases, each time “upping the ante” slightly. I believe this is a rational and coherent approach to the topic. You may disagree with that approach and you may want to skip directly to the “end game” (probably evidence of “alien artifacts” or some other such “compelling” evidence) but I am determined to stick with my step-by-step approach.

Each case I present has aspects to it that, I believe, add growing weight to a body of evidence that points toward an “alien” presence. That, as I have taken great care to repeatedly point out, does NOT mean ET. So far we have discussed some good and interesting cases (Rogue River and White Sands - which “prove” the existence of UFOs), and have now moved on to the Tehran and Father Gill cases (which “prove” the existence of “aliens” – or at least “operative intelligence” and “intelligent beings” respectively).

NOTE: I use the word “prove” very loosely in this context.

Well, so far what you have presented with these cases have not been good enough to convince anybody here to change their opinion. In fact, these cases have not changed the scientific community's opinion on the subject.

I disagree. I have presented cases which have not convinced diehard “skeptics” such as yourself but you do not speak for all the “viewers” of this thread. Moreover you do NOT speak for the scientific “community” – indeed, you are not a trained scientist. On the other hand I am part of that scientific community and many others beside me DO believe that UFOs NEED to be investigated scientifically. The cases I present are not designed to “convince” anyone. Merely to show that what the die hard skeptics propose - that there IS no good evidence - is misguided.

What is so good about this evidence? It is entirely anecdotal. You can not even provide one actual physical record of the condition of the aircraft or the actual radar tapes in the Teheran case.

In the Tehran case we have the testimony of the avionics technicians stating that they could find nothing wrong with the jet’s avionics. We do not have the actual radar tapes but we DO have the first hand testimony of (at least) one pilot describing that radar contact WAS made… indicating a solid object. We also have the testimony of the tower operator confirming radar contact and we have statements indicating the size of the object deduced from those radar contacts.

Either your presentation of the evidence fails or the evidence is "not good enough". Presenting evidence of mysteries is not the same thing as providing good evidence as to what the source of these mysteries might be.

I have NEVER pretended that I KNOW the “source” of the “mysteries” I present. I merely contend that the evidence SUGGESTS scientific exploration of certain hypotheses might be fruitful. Science always progresses by exploring “mysteries”. Attaching the label “mystery” to a phenomenon (or phenomena) does NOT detract from the fact that it may be worthy of investigation.

How is it conclusive of anything if it's unidentified? Wasn't the Campeche incident evidence also conclusive of aliens?

This is precisely where the “skeptics” miss the point of the whole exercise. They miss the point because they BEGIN with a priori assumptions about the nature of UFOs and assume that researchers do also. This is an entirely mistaken belief of the skeptics.

Researchers were able to determine that the Cempeche incident (that captured on video) was probably caused by misidentification of oil platform fires. In that case a readily apparent “cause” was reasonably attributed. There is a world of difference between that case and the Tehran incident where a mundane cause is not at all apparent. If anyone can come up with a reasonable mundane cause for the Tehran incident, then I am willing to assess that explanation on its merits.

Am I the only one to find a bit weird that aliens from outside the boundaries of nature are humanoid?

Oh, so you are now an expert in “alien” biology and evolution then? An equal question could be asked: Why not humanoid? Indeed, given the only example of intelligence (and I use the word advisedly) is humanoid, then perhaps humanoid IS the most effective evolutionary configuration for a physically operative intelligence (also given that the universe generally seems to obey the physical laws that pertain to us).

Rramjet; "The times you provide matched with the sighting times mean the UFO WAS intitially seen in daylight (especially on the second “night”! "

Can you respond to post #3067 please?

You mean you want me to address your substantive point about the UFO being visible in daylight on the second night? (rather than your facetiousness about Thai women?)

Here are sunset times from your own post:

Ephemeris for 1959-06-26 19:00§, UT, 10°29'S, 150°04'E
* These values are geocentric.
Apparent* (W from S) Unrefracted Vis. Illum.
Right Asc Declination Azimuth Altitude Magn. Frac.
--------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----- ------
Sun 6h19m05s 23°22'10" 248°53'20" -32°06'30" -26.7 •••
Moon 23h24m12s -2°09'33" 244°43'46" 70°59'22" -10.5 61.8%

On the first night the sightings began about 6:45pm that is while it was still twilight. On the second night the sightings began at 6pm - that is at least a full half an hour BEFORE sunset… so in DAYLIGHT! The UFO could then be adequately seen and described (besides, it was also “self illuminating”).

So what is your point?

You know, I'm going to have to concede that I may well be wrong, and the weapons control system may in fact be referred to as part of the avionics. I believed the term avionics was used to describe the systems which controlled the actual aircraft itself. If that's wrong then I apologise for increasing the level of confusion in this thread.

Having said that, you really can't get away with conflating a failed weapons control panel with a loss of flight instrumentation: The instrumentation and systems used to actually fly the second F-4 were never claimed to be affected. Yet you "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."

Even if the report is accurate, the pilot had his full complement of flight instruments working and believed he was evading a missile. So please explain again why you think the pilot was more afraid of inverting his aircraft than he was of an incoming missile.

And this is before we consider the likelihood that the failed attempt to launch a sidewinder was really just hasty operational error, later blamed on a systems failure as an excuse.

And all of the above is to ignore the pure supposition of your claim that these reported systems failures were not merely real, but were caused by whatever target the aircrew believed they were pursuing.

I am respectful of someone who can admit their mistakes. Thank you Jack…

Having said that…

Here is the scenario. You know that the previous jet in your position lost all avionics. You in turn have now just lost weapons control and communications. Do you invert the jet? If you do, what happens if all your avionics systems go the way of the previous jet? I don’t presume to know the mind of the pilot at the time, but all things considered I would expect the pilot NOT to make any manoeuvre that could place his craft and crew in jeopardy – especially since he ALREADY has avionics going out on him – the thought MUST have crossed his mind that his control indicators also might “die” as they did on the previous jet… Morover, the UFO launched its “missile from a distance of about 25nm… that gives the pilot ample time to weigh up his options. He obviously considered his ultimate manoeuvre the best under the circumstances.

But there is something a little strange here. WHAT is the point of this argument? We KNOW that Jafari was a squadron leader, so he was certainly qualified to fly the damn plane!

And what is this nonsense about a “hasty error”? Jafari tried to launch a missile when he determined his plane was under clear and present danger. Full stop. Under the circumstances I don’t think he would have worried about the consequences of that action - even if he later reconsidered his action to be “hasty”. “Hasty”… from a shaken pilot I can accept…but “error” it simply CANNOT be! He had a clear target that was manifesting aggressive behaviour by launching “something” at him.

Finally you claim that the “systems failure” (of BOTH aircraft) was some sort of elaborate coverup designed to deflect investigation away from operational incompetence. Perhaps your contention would have more weight if only ONE plane experienced a loss of avionics - but interestingly, even after knowing that the first plane lost ALL its avionics, Jafari did NOT claim the same thing for his jet. He ONLY claimed loss of weapons systems and communications. Under your scenario he did NOT even have to do THAT. After all, a missile was NOT launched from his plane (thus he had NO need to “explain” a launched missile). He could have bought the whole thing back to the ground, kept silent about loss of weapons systems and no-one would have been any the wiser that he actually tried to launch a missile. You “coverup” scenario does NOT make sense. Besides, under you coverup conspiracy theory, what “incompetence” were BOTH jets trying to cover anyway?

That Jafari claimed a different avionics scenario from the first jet lends credence that the loss of avionics experiences WERE real. It is also incredible to suppose that all four pilots involved (remember an F-4 has a backseater) conspired to cover up… what exactly…?

No, your conspiracy theory just does NOT make sense.

Trustez-moi, gentlehommes.

Between us, Puddle Duck and I know exactly how this stuff works. I'm just waiting on a response to an earlier question of mine to Monsieur le Rramjet.

You have your response (above) and whatever else I know about the subject is unnecessary to disclose at this point.

Wrong. It means it hasn't been identified. It doesn't mean it cannot be identified.

Go on then, identify the Tehran UFO… or the Father Gill UFO…take your pick.

Puddle Duck I will answer your post ASAP.

 

[Marduk]

TLDR
(like whats the point anyway, I already know what its gonna say)

 

[wollery]

Rramjet, a few questions.

What shape is a blimp when viewed face on?

So, are the descriptions of the object being round inconsistent with a blimp?

What shape did the two observers with binoculars describe the object as having after they said it turned?

So, are their descriptions of the general shape of the object inconsistent with a blimp?

Are you trying to suggest that there were no blimps at all in operation on the US West coast at the time of the sighting?

If your answers aren't, "round", "no", "cigar shaped", "no", and "no" then you are a liar.

 

[Paul2]

NOTE: I use the word “prove” very loosely in this context.

Propriety forbids me.