UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Jack by the hedge]

Resident pilot? We have only his word on that and given his mathematical incompetence etc etc

Nobody* here but you thinks Puddle Duck doesn't know the F4 inside out. He's the only person here who's demonstrated a real familiarity with the aircraft. Your attempts to attack his credibility are just embarrassing. If you think otherwise, you're deluded.

*If I'm wrong about that, whoever genuinely thinks PD is a wannabe kid masquerading as a pilot, do please speak up. Rr could use a friend.

As for your questions, many of them are actually answered in the records of the case and others we can reasonably infer. Jafari’s knowledge of the first jet? It beggars belief to suppose that Jafari would NOT be informed of the status of the first jet. After all, any information gained by the first jet is directly relevant to his own “mission”.

So do you contend that he was told more than that the first aircraft had turned back because of some kind of systems failure? Do you have any evidence that he was told anything which would lead him to infer that parts of his avionics might mysteriously shut down if he approached the bogey? (And I do mean lead him to infer this, not lead you to infer this. At the time there was no reason for him to believe he was flying into the Twilight Zone.)

Inadvertently switched off? Now you are supposing incompetence from a highly experienced squadron leader… moreover, if a pilot can “switch off” his own weapons system so easily without knowing it in a “combat” situation, then surely that is a MAJOR design fault in the F-4 and would have been picked up on and corrected MUCH earlier that 1976! No, it is a scenario that just does NOT make any sense at all.

Ooh, how very dare I suggest a pilot is capable of error. You talk as if no pilot ever made a mistake. As if pilot error was an absurd notion compared to the mundane idea of space aliens using mystical remote control technology.

According to the evidence the systems rectified themselves.

Please could you indicate where among the various documents it says when and how the second F-4's weapons control system rectified itself? Is there a report which unambiguously names the weapons controls which stopped working, as the terminology used doesn't seem to match up with the F-4 cockpit diagrams.

 

[Belz...]

You obtuseness knows no bounds.

Why, thank you.

A blimp viewed “face on” (head on to us mere mortals) along the line of its horizontal axis is circular. BUT you forget a critical point. The witnesses at Rogue River saw an ELLIPTICAL object…

I thought you said it was circular.

but it was elliptical in the HORIZONTAL plane – a blimp would have presented as elliptical in the vertical plane.

Only if viewed from the front. You seem to be wiggling, now. This post of yours is clearly a contradiction of your previous ones. If I remember correctly, BOTH an ellipse and a circle were drawn, no ? Shouldn't that indicate that the object they saw was NOT circular, but only so from a certain angle ? If so, then your entire reasoning is flawed because whether or not it is a blimp, it has a similar shape to a blimp and therefore COULD have been seen head-on. You can't have your cake and eat it, too.

The witnesses INTERPRETED the object as circular because during it approach, oblique transverse and flight away from the observers, its aspect remained the SAME throughout.

Speculation. You are only doubting the eyewitness account when it suits you.

Let us look at this aspect a little more closely (again). If the object was closer to the observers that estimated it would have been SMALLER than the estimated 35 (or so) feet and THAT is NOT a blimp. If it was further away from the observers than estimated then it would have been larger …but THEN the estimated SPEED would have been faster as well (remember jet plane) and THAT is NOT a blimp either.

Calculations, please.

I think you have posted on that topic MORE than four times, yet curiously have NEVER explained your own position on the matter…

WHAT ???? I said, clearly, that since the two possible basic explanations for this observation, namely "mundane" and "alien", and discounting "we don't know", the probability that it is something already known to science (hoax, delusion, cloud, blimp, plane, etc.) is much higher than the probability that it is not, if only because we KNOW the things known to science EXIST, which is, obviously, not the case for the things NOT known to science to exist. Therefore it is YOUR burden to show that, whatever it is, it is NOT known to science. THEN, and only THEN can we focus on what it is, exactly.

You are trying to shift the burden of proof to the middle because it allows you to go back to the middle "we don't know" ground. But it doesn't work that way with skeptical inquiry. Read back my previous examples on the subject, and please never again claim that I wasn't clear about what I meant.

 

[Belgian thought]

Do you agree, that sunset at Boainai was some 11 minutes before 18:00? - A simple yes or no answer please.

Ramjet: No.


Here is another question then: At what speed would you have liked the earth to have rotated, within that sighting period, so that the sunset at Boainai was at "around 6PM" ?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Your statement was “For example, in a criminal trial, if 20 people say they saw Billy shoot the sheriff, then Billy will likely be convicted.”

This implies that Billy is convicted of a capital crime on the evidence of ONLY the eyewitnesses. THAT in turn means, according to you, anecdotal evidence is SUFFICIENT to convict in a capital case. If anecdotal (eyewitness) evidence is sufficient to convict in a capital case it would therefore be hypocritical of you to suggest such evidence is not good enough to allow investigation and determine conclusions concerning UFOs.

Apparently hypocritical of the entire scientific community. Well, except for you once you prove that you are really a scientist. When were you going to get around to proving that? All indications are that you are as unfamiliar with the scientific method as you are with the F4. Isn't it a good thing that we have Puddle Duck in our midst since he actually does know the F4?

So… my question to YOU remains. Your fellow skeptics in this forum have oft repeated that anecdotal (eyewitness) evidence is NOT evidence at all. You seem to contradict that position. I just want to confirm your position in the matter. Do you believe anecdotal evidence to be GOOD evidence (and you seem to suggest it IS by allowing conviction in a capital case solely on the basis of it) or not? WHICH is it RoboTimbo?

I'll simply ask you the question since you apparently can't learn from when other people tell you things. I'll have to lead you to the water and let you decide to drink on your own or not.

Do you believe that anecdotal evidence is admissable in court? yes/no
Do you believe that anecdotal evidence is enough to prove extraordinary claims? yes/no

These are two separate questions, Rramjet. Answer each to the best of your ability. This is an open book test, so feel free to copy from others.

I stated: “I have stated on NUMEROUS occasions that the Cempeche incident was determined to be the result of mistaken identity of oil well fires.”

Okaaaay…then if not oil well fires (which does seem to be the general consensus)…what is YOUR explanation of the incident then?

Oil well fires. So why did the trained military observer eyewitnesses get it so wrong? You're presenting anecdotal evidence as if it were gospel for other cases. Why not for this one? I think you're getting close to an epiphany. I'm just trying to get you over the hump as it were.

I stated: “In other words researchers determined a reasonable mundane explanation for the case.”

Ah ha! And if they hadn't? What would be the answer if you'd never found out about the oil rigs? This would have been one of your strongest cases for TRUE UFO. It will take a mental leap for you to admit seeing it.

The simplistic naivety by which you approach this topic is extraordinary. First, if you want to accuse me of hypocricy then I suggest you need to point out precicely WHERE and HOW ANY of my statements have been inconsistent to that degree. You cannot? I thought not.

Ah, insults. Very scientisty of you.

Second in the Cempeche case there is a perfectly reasonable mundane explanation for precisely HOW and WHY the witnesses misinterpreted what they saw (including the film).

You have all the pieces, now do you have what it takes to put the puzzle together?

This is something that the UFO debunkers just cannot accept. There is a WEALTH of research on precisely the conditions that may lead to eyewitness error. We CAN and DO take that research into account when examining eyewitness testimony. If environmental and psychological conditions are present that research has shown might lead to (for example) misinterpretation, then we look for things that could be misinterpreted when viewed under those conditions. If we find mundane objects in the environment that CAN be so misinterpreted (while being consistent with eyewitness descriptions) then we can come up with a probable mundane explanation.

Annnnnnnd.... the answer is no, you don't have what it takes.

A KEY point to note here is that the mundane explanation is entirely CONSISTENT with the eyewitness descriptions. So far from “discounting” the eyewitness testimony or the FLIR, we actually TAKE INTO ACCOUNT the eyewitness observations to ensure our mundane explanation IS consistent with what is being described.

I know this argument will be too subtle and complex for you but others will perhaps see the point and note the naivety of your own approach.

More insults. Very nice.

I stated: “ IF you have ANY mundane explanation for the Tehran of Father Gill cases I would like to hear them and I will assess them on their merits! But of course you HAVE no such explanation do you?”

Okay, it’s a UFO… but note what the UFO DID! What it DID amounts to intelligent control! A UFO under intelligent control? Hmmmm…what does THAT then suggest to you RoboTimbo? (remembering that the thing also performed actions and manouvers totally outside the boundaries of what we commonly take to be the limits of our own technology)

Note what the UFOs did in the Campeche case. What does that then suggest to you Rramjet? They surrounded the airplane at one point. What kind of oil well fires can do that, Rramjet? They chased the military craft. Do you know of any oil rigs that can do that? Trained military observers, Rramjet. Evidence in the form of FLIR video footage, Rramjet.

Now that you've been schooled in the worth of anecdotal evidence, do you have any cases where there is anything more than anecdotal evidence? You, as a scientist, must see the foolishness in people who would present only anecdotal evidence to prove something outside our current body of knowledge.

 

[Astrophotographer]

It also, by the SAME logic, does NOT make the story false. Second hand information? Pirouzi was the TOWER CONTROLLER and the general was the one who ordered the planes into the air! Second hand? You amaze me Astrophotographer! (Well…on second thoughts…no you don’t…it is par for the UFO debunker course to DENY the evidence in front of them for THAT is the only recourse left to them… certainly they have no rational or logical approach to the EVIDENCE).

We can only consider Pirouzi's testimony based on what he saw and heard. Apparently, he heard wrong that the plane went to the Afghan border. His observations of the "UFO" have little relevance to the actual intercept. BTW, I notice that Pirouzi stated the "mother UFO" remained in the sky and climbed higher as time passed. However, the UFO kept getting smaller and smaller until it disappeared. When did this happen is hard to say but it was after 4AM. It is interesting to know that astronomical objects will also "climb" higher and higher into the sky and will get fainter as twilight begins and "disappear".

The general can only repeat what he was told by the pilot. If the pilot made an error he may or may not have known about, it would not be revealed since he was the only person who would know.

As for Puddle Duck's calculations, I found some minor erros but his major point is the plane had to have wing tanks to make the trip to Teheran and back if it was flying with afterburners/high speeds. This is the major point of his argument. Do you still state this is not the case? If so, explain why.

 

[gambling_cruiser]

It's clear that Rramjet doesn't understand the different standards of juridical evidence and scientific evidence.

 

[gambling_cruiser]

Snip
BTW, I notice that Pirouzi stated the "mother UFO" remained in the sky and climbed higher as time passed. However, the UFO kept getting smaller and smaller until it disappeared. When did this happen is hard to say but it was after 4AM. It is interesting to know that astronomical objects will also "climb" higher and higher into the sky and will get fainter as twilight begins and "disappear".

That proves that the mothership did hide behind a planet!!!!

 

[Rramjet]

Rramjet, it looks as though you didn’t have answers to my questions.

Are you willing to accept that the Dash one is the bible for the aircraft? If yes, then maybe you can learn.
I cannot teach you if you refuse to learn.

I can accept the above specifications for the E model. That list is for the E model only. My Dash one is for C/D models.

(..)

Please answer my questions.

But Puddle Duck… The Iranian F-4s were E models… so I do NOT accept the charts for the C (or D) models to accurately represent the characteristics of the E model. The indicator for this is that you have to go OFF the charts to get a reading! That just CANNOT be right! Something is wrong here. You also DON’T know the air temperature and you DON’T know the wind conditions at the time…

Besides, the charts you present are for ½ flaps only (ONLY)… BUT the Phantom can rotate its entire wing angles and can achieve takeoffs from (for example) aircraft carriers at speeds of just 120 knots! (see about 2/5 of the way into the article) (http://www.fiddlersgreen.net/models/aircraft/McDonnell-Phantom.html)

So your charts are just NOT applicable … NOR do they tell the whole story about what an F-4 CAN do! Either you are deliberately keeping information from us in order to support your own POV OR you just do NOT know much about F-4 Phantoms. Which IS it Puddle Duck?

Besides, the fact remains that the UFO outran the F-4 no matter WHAT max. speed it was travelling. It was then able to chase and catch a fleeing F-4. No matter how you look at it – and even if you discount the other extraordinary manoeuvres it undertook - it was a pretty high performance object – whatever it was!

More…I have found that

“Starting with Block 42, the more advanced AN/APR-36/37 radar and homing warning system was fitted. This was a more comprehensive set than the troublesome APS-107, and was served by four flat, circular, spiral receiving antenna, one on each side of the extreme end of the rear fuselage facing aft and one at the front of each wingtip facing forward. ((http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f4_11.html) (bolding mine Rr)

So it seems the Phantom DID have full radar visibility to the rear!

So UNTIL you can show that the plane could NOT reach Mach 2 under the conditions and circumstances on the night - then we have NO reason to doubt what the first hand witnesses tell us about what happened!

 

[Sledge]

Rramjet, a radar and homing WARNING system. WARNING.

WARNING

It's not a system that shows you anything, it's a system that detects radar waves and tells you you're being illuminated by a radar system. How can you consistently fail to understand this simple point? Is your reading comprehension genuinely that poor, or are you ignoring the point so as to keep your precious story alive?

 

[TjW]

<snippage by TjW>!

More…I have found that

“Starting with Block 42, the more advanced AN/APR-36/37 radar and homing warning system was fitted. This was a more comprehensive set than the troublesome APS-107, and was served by four flat, circular, spiral receiving antenna, one on each side of the extreme end of the rear fuselage facing aft and one at the front of each wingtip facing forward. ((http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f4_11.html) (bolding mine Rr)

So it seems the Phantom DID have full radar visibility to the rear!

So UNTIL you can show that the plane could NOT reach Mach 2 under the conditions and circumstances on the night - then we have NO reason to doubt what the first hand witnesses tell us about what happened!

Edited to help Rramjet with reading for comprehension. A receiver alone is not a radar.

 

[gambling_cruiser]

Snip
“Starting with Block 42, the more advanced AN/APR-36/37 radar and homing warning system was fitted. This was a more comprehensive set than the troublesome APS-107, and was served by four flat, circular, spiral receiving antenna, one on each side of the extreme end of the rear fuselage facing aft and one at the front of each wingtip facing forward. ((http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f4_11.html) (bolding mine Rr)

So it seems the Phantom DID have full radar visibility to the rear!
snip

And this only shows you have no idea what you are talking about.
This is a warning system means passive receivers for detecting the radar of the enemy (fighters or SAM) and can not give a distance for unknown signal levels. As the technical specifications of the UFO are unknown, it is impossible to even guess a distance from the output of the warning system.
EPIC FAIL

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Is there a category of fail above epic?

(One suitable for, say, someone digging an elephant trap and falling into it themselves, then triumphantly announcing they've dug it even deeper just as they fall in again?)

 

[gambling_cruiser]

Part of the Iranian UFO story might be a MIG 25 from Russia probing the defense system of Iran, part might be planets, maybe the F4s were part time even chasing each other! Inexperienced pilots, accidently disabling the missile system, without orders to shoot down anything, confusion and trying to save their backside afterwards.
Reported by the National Enquirer - enough said.

 

[Marcus]

Rramjet, it looks as though you didn’t have answers to my questions.

Are you willing to accept that the Dash one is the bible for the aircraft? If yes, then maybe you can learn.
I cannot teach you if you refuse to learn.

I can accept the above specifications for the E model. That list is for the E model only. My Dash one is for C/D models. This says that the weights were increased by about 600 lbs empty, internal fuel moved up by 660 lbs with a max burner thrust increase of 845 lbs/engine/1700 lbs total. The max takeoff weight increases by 3800 lbs and the max landing weight decreases by 10,200 lbs. What became so fragile on the E that max landing weight had to decrease by over 10,000 lbs?
So the upshot of using the E specs is that the overall performances are roughly equal. The extra weight almost balances the extra burner thrust, mil thrust will of course be somewhat less, and will probably come close to zeroing the equation. For any weights I calculate, just add 1260 lbs.. Therefore, until you can come up with the corresponding charts for the E model , we’ll use mine, and you can add the 1260 pounds. When you do get them, please post so I can see the difference if any.


Now let us look at takeoff roll. Yes there is a particular set of circumstances that will give you those particular numbers. A takeoff distance of 4490 ft. will apply for a specific weight, runway location and weather. Anything else will be wrong.

Let me lead you through the original problem at Sharakhi. It was a 40 degree day in the summer with a field elevation of 5600 ft. and a takeoff weight of 58,000 lbs, no wind.

#1- open this page
w ww.yvonneclaireadams.com/HostedStuff/More%20Charts/F-4%20takeoff%20mil%20solved.gif
Remove the space.
You never attempted to do any of these chart problems. If you had and did the problem, you would have discovered the answer for yourself. I have run the problem for you, but we’ll still go through the problem so that you will understand it.
Print a paper copy

#2- We’ll start at the bottom of graph on the left of the page. The air temperature is 40 degrees, so find it. It is the second large hash from the right. Draw a pencil line straight up it.

#3- Find the field elevation. The curved family of lines are the elevation from sea level on the bottom spaced every 2,000 feet and ending at 10,000 feet. The elevation of 5600 feet is between the third and fourth lines from the bottom. Interpolate about ¾ of the distance up the pencil line. That is the intersection of the temp and elevation.

#4- Draw another line horizontally through that intersection going beyond the graph to the right. You will now have to extrapolate the bottom two lines out to the right and off the graph. Now interpolate vertically from the bottom line that is the 60,000 lb line 3/5ths of the way to the next line up which is the 55,000 lb line. That will be a 58K lb weight. Put a mark there.

#5 Draw a pencil line vertically down to the bottom of the small graph in the center. Extrapolate the ground run line to the right and read the answer. It is just a touch over 18,000 ft. (My bad- I had done a finger follow on the chart before and came up with 20k ft. It’s hard to get a close number when extrapolating outside of the chart. The results are the same though.)

This is the takeoff roll at Sharokhi using only Military power. Are you willing to believe it?

And yes Sharokhi had one runway of 10k ft. in the ’70. It now has two runways of length 12,900,and 14,300 Compare the calculated runs with the present lengths.

As for the takeoff roll: of 4,490 ft (1,370 m) at 53,814 lb (24,410 kg) in the PR sheet, use the “Max thrust takeoff chart”
w ww.yvonneclaireadams.com/HostedStuff/More%20Charts/TOD_MaxThrust.jpg
and do the same problem as the above. The only difference will be where the horizontal line intersects the weight and then the drop to the roll distance. I guarantee that it will be longer than 4490 ft.


The “loaded weight” is simply the weight of the plane with everything on it that you plan to fly with. No more, no less. Those “sources” are undoubtedly confusing it with a “ramp weight” consisting of the operating weight plus internal fuel and getting it wrong. Operating weight and ramp weight have very specific definitions in aviation.
Look at this page
w ww.yvonneclaireadams.com/HostedStuff/More%20Charts/F-4%20ramp%20weights.gif
Look at the right column and go down to “airplane gross weights”. Read the definitions. Below this section are models C and D showing various ramp weights. The different ramp weights are the different fuel loads both internal and auxiliary added to the operating weight


We will now develop a load.. There will be wing tanks, 4 Sparrows and 4 Sidewinders. Look at the above page again. We’ll use the D model.

Use a piece of scratch paper and write: ramp weight = 47,000

Now go to this page
w ww.yvonneclaireadams.com/HostedStuff/More%20Charts/F-4%20Stores%20Loading.gif
This is the “stores loading”. It has stores, their weight and their drag. We are using Aim 7s and Aim 9s.
Go down the left column until you arrive at “aim-7E missile, fuselage mounted ( 10th row). Move across that row till you come to the column labeled “weight per store” The 455 there is the weight of each Sparrow, so multiply that by 4 and put 1820 under the 47,000.
Now go down 3 more rows until you see “aim-9B missile”. Again go to the right to the weight column, pick up the weight of 155, multiply that by 4 and put 620 under the 1820. Now you have something that looks like
Ramp weight = 47,000
Aim 7s = 1820
Aim 9s = 620
Add these and you come up with 49,440 lbs. This is the loaded weight for an air alert fighter. Does it look familiar to your “(NOT 49000)”? Could you agree that I am right on these? For the E model just add the 1260 lbs.

I think others have pointed out your error confusing Baghdad with Sharokhi.

Please answer my questions.

Thanks for taking the time to make posts like these. Rramjet may ignore you for the crime of piercing his fantasy with unwanted facts, but the rest of us appreciate it.

 

[Sledge]

Why do I have this feeling we're going to have to do a very basic rundown on how radar works?

 

[tsig]

NPlease could you indicate where among the various documents it says when and how the second F-4's weapons control system rectified itself? Is there a report which unambiguously names the weapons controls which stopped working, as the terminology used doesn't seem to match up with the F-4 cockpit diagrams.

Sounds like an intermittent electrical problem. They're the hardest to find esp. when they're caused by UFOs.

 

[Akhenaten]

Why do I have this feeling we're going to have to do a very basic rundown on how radar works?

I echo this feeling.

 

[tsig]

I echo this feeling.

I'm sure the info will be reflected back to us.

 

[gambling_cruiser]

To try to educate Rramjet on all topics he has shown ignorance might be a full time job, take in account his proven reading comprehension problem this task looks like lifetime employment.

 

[Rramjet]

Nobody* here but you thinks Puddle Duck doesn't know the F4 inside out. He's the only person here who's demonstrated a real familiarity with the aircraft. Your attempts to attack his credibility are just embarrassing. If you think otherwise, you're deluded.

*If I'm wrong about that, whoever genuinely thinks PD is a wannabe kid masquerading as a pilot, do please speak up. Rr could use a friend.

See my post #3488 for MORE about what PD DOESN’T know about F-4s!

WHAT ???? I said, clearly, that since the two possible basic explanations for this observation, namely "mundane" and "alien", and discounting "we don't know", the probability that it is something already known to science (hoax, delusion, cloud, blimp, plane, etc.) is much higher than the probability that it is not, if only because we KNOW the things known to science EXIST, which is, obviously, not the case for the things NOT known to science to exist. Therefore it is YOUR burden to show that, whatever it is, it is NOT known to science. THEN, and only THEN can we focus on what it is, exactly.

You are trying to shift the burden of proof to the middle because it allows you to go back to the middle "we don't know" ground. But it doesn't work that way with skeptical inquiry. Read back my previous examples on the subject, and please never again claim that I wasn't clear about what I meant.

Actually we were discussing your conception of “the burden of proof”. MY burden is to present evidence to support my hypotheses that (first) UFOs exist and (second) that “aliens” exist. The Tehran case involves a UFO that could outperform an F-4 (fleeing and chasing), disable an F-4s avionics, split apart and rejoin, change shape and “jump” from one location to another. Now IF you have ANY thing “known to science to exist” that can do ALL those things then please tell us about it! Until you can, I contend that the UFO provides evidential support for my hypotheses.

…and despite your (illogical) conception of “the burden of proof” it is NOT enough for you to merely contend “Oh, but there must be SOMETHING that can do all these things that is not “alien”. You have to provide EVIDENCE that there IS something that can do all those things I listed above.

Do you agree, that sunset at Boainai was some 11 minutes before 18:00? - A simple yes or no answer please.

Ramjet: No.

Here is another question then: At what speed would you have liked the earth to have rotated, within that sighting period, so that the sunset at Boainai was at "around 6PM" ?

Actually, the witnesses on the second night stated that when they first saw the UFO that the sky was still bright! THAT means that no matter WHAT time sunset was, the sighting began BEFORE sunset.

Besides, you have provided NO evidence to support YOUR estimation of the time of sunset at the place in question!

I'll simply ask you the question since you apparently can't learn from when other people tell you things. I'll have to lead you to the water and let you decide to drink on your own or not.

Do you believe that anecdotal evidence is admissable in court? yes/no
Do you believe that anecdotal evidence is enough to prove extraordinary claims? yes/no

These are two separate questions, Rramjet. Answer each to the best of your ability. This is an open book test, so feel free to copy from others.

I repeat:

So… my question to YOU remains. Your fellow skeptics in this forum have oft repeated that anecdotal (eyewitness) evidence is NOT evidence at all. You seem to contradict that position. I just want to confirm your position in the matter. Do you believe anecdotal evidence to be GOOD evidence (and you seem to suggest it IS by allowing conviction in a capital case solely on the basis of it) or not? WHICH is it RoboTimbo?

Of course you WILL NOT answer that question will you. Please tell me why I should answer any of your questions if you will not answer mine?

Apparently hypocritical of the entire scientific community.

Unfounded generalisations with absolutely NO evidential support are par for the course for the UFO debunkers in this forum.

Well, except for you once you prove that you are really a scientist. When were you going to get around to proving that?

I don’t HAVE to prove my credentials to anyone in this place. They are entirely irrelevant to the arguments.

All indications are that you are as unfamiliar with the scientific method as you are with the F4. Isn't it a good thing that we have Puddle Duck in our midst since he actually does know the F4?

See my post #3488 for MORE about what Puddle duck DOESN’T know about F-4s!

Note what the UFOs did in the Campeche case. What does that then suggest to you Rramjet? They surrounded the airplane at one point. What kind of oil well fires can do that, Rramjet? They chased the military craft. Do you know of any oil rigs that can do that? Trained military observers, Rramjet. Evidence in the form of FLIR video footage, Rramjet.

How many times…! We have a reasonable mundane explanation for the Cempeche incident. IF you can come up with ANY reasonable mundane explanation for the Tehran or Father Gill cases I will assess them on their merits. So far NONE have been forthcoming!

More you seem to (again) deny that there is ANY research conducted on human perception that we can learn from. The fact remains that there is an EXTENSIVE body of research on human perception showing us precisely under what conditions human perception can be mislead. We KNOW that “oil well fires” are a reasonable mundane explanation for the Cempeche incident because we UNDERSTAND how human perception CAN be mislead in precisely that circumstance (otherwise there would have been a great deal of argument about whether the pilot’s perception COULD have been mislead in such a way by the oil wells). Simply, given the environment, then the findings from perceptual research gives us the key to understanding the incident. If there were NO such research then we could NOT understand the incident so easily!

Again, your naivety in this situation is NOT an insult, it is a mere statement of fact.

We can only consider Pirouzi's testimony based on what he saw and heard. Apparently, he heard wrong that the plane went to the Afghan border. His observations of the "UFO" have little relevance to the actual intercept. BTW, I notice that Pirouzi stated the "mother UFO" remained in the sky and climbed higher as time passed. However, the UFO kept getting smaller and smaller until it disappeared. When did this happen is hard to say but it was after 4AM. It is interesting to know that astronomical objects will also "climb" higher and higher into the sky and will get fainter as twilight begins and "disappear".

You will have to refresh my memory about who it was who claimed the Afghan border was reached. I could be mistaken, but I thought the claim was merely that the UFO was chased toward the Afghan border (ie; a direction rather than a location). Besides, to the Afghan border or not to the Afghan border. Does it really matter to the substantive details in the case?

Oh, so you are claiming an astronomical object as an explanation for the sighting then? Perhaps you can explain how an astronomical object can chase an F-4, disable their avionics, and perform all the other manoeuvres that it did?

The general can only repeat what he was told by the pilot. If the pilot made an error he may or may not have known about, it would not be revealed since he was the only person who would know.

Well, we have the first hand accounts of the pilot and (outside of wild conspiracy theories) we have NO reason to doubt his word – especially since it is supported by Mooy’s memorandum who was in the interview with the pilot BEFORE it became a public “UFO case”.

As for Puddle Duck's calculations, I found some minor errors but his major point is the plane had to have wing tanks to make the trip to Tehran and back if it was flying with afterburners/high speeds. This is the major point of his argument. Do you still state this is not the case? If so, explain why.

MY point is that first Puddle Duck seems to lack a great deal of information about F-4s and second that wing tanks or no wing tanks (and you are forgetting the centre tank) there is NO proof that the plane could NOT reach mach 2.