UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[gambling_cruiser]

Hey Rramjet, at what altitude did the Iranian F4 it's mach 2 run?

 

[Rramjet]

Rear radar? The part of the phrase NONE of you highlighted was "RADAR AND..." (selective attention deficit?)

To my uninitiated eye RADAR means RADAR. That is; RAdio Detection And Ranging! But if I am wrong about that then so be it...

Besides that was just a small part of my post...what about the other F-4 specs Puddle Duck is "mistaken" (to put it politely) about. Why don't you all call HIM out in the same manner you do me?

Hypocrisy? YOU BET!

 

[Akhenaten]

Not hypocrisy, but credibility. One has, one hasn't.

Do the maths.

 

[RoboTimbo]

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?

Your reading comprehension failures have already been noted, no need to press home the point. Posts 3428, 3445, 3449, 3486.

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

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

So you give equal evidentiary weight to them as you do to evidence for UFO's being alien in origin. Wholly anecdotal and therefore worthless for proving an extraordinary claim.

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

I've seen it and I'm embarrassed for you. It appears you are digging that deeper elephant pit trap.

How many times…!

Until you finally get it. I'm not hopeful.

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!

Not up to me to come up with mundane explanations. Burden of proof, remember? Hasn't left your bailiwick yet.

More you seem to (again) deny that there is ANY research conducted on human perception that we can learn from.

Just you, actually.

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!

See, you get to the brink of understanding but then can't make that tiny mental leap to extrapolating.

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

No, it was clearly an insult based on your opinion with no basis in fact. You are forgiven this time for such childishness. Do not repeat it in future.

Now, back to your elephant pit trap.

 

[Rramjet]

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.

Yeah... and a Foxbat is the size of a 707 and can split apart and rejoin and can disable the F-4s avionics and can "shape shift" and would have chased an Iranian F-4 over Tehran AND would have been right on top of the F-4 as it flew over the runway of an Iranian military base. Of course... why did I not see the sense in that before? And of course "planets" can do that too! and Inexperience?! Jafari, the pilot of the second jet was a Major and a squadron leader! ...yet I suppose inexperience does at least allow one to become "pilot", we have Puddle Duck to evidence that contention... and of course Mooy and Mckenzie and Evans and Jafari and Pirouzi and the Iranian general(s) the DIA, the CIA etc and so on are ALL fully paid up members of the National Enquirer and all (including the great and powerful Guru Klass) are also part of some gigantic conspiracy theory of cover-up! Gee it is so simple when you put it like that!...

 

[Belz...]

MY burden is to present evidence to support my hypotheses that (first) UFOs exist

Not a point in contention.

and (second) that “aliens” exist.

So far, zilch.

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!

I know of at least one: radar error.

Until you can, I contend that the UFO provides evidential support for my hypotheses.

Well, that may be because your threshold of evidence is very, very low.

…and despite your (illogical) conception of “the burden of proof”

You don't know what "logic" means.

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”.

If you even bothered to read and understand what people write you wouldn't be battling those funky strawmen. What I'm saying is that we must favor the known over the unknown until it is shown that the known cannot account for the observation. It's a pragmatic decision, not a logical one, because otherwise we'd be chasing nonsense most of the time instead of doing actual science.

 

[Belgian thought]

Originally Posted by 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 PM" ?


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.

So details regarding the times of sightings should be ignored - I am sure you stated 18:00, DAYLIGHT - your caps,and then around 6PM and then and then...., I am now lost with your reasoning.

To date, thanks to you, we have been unable to pinpoint a time of the sightings.

How can we take this any further?

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

What about the pictures of the skies? I liked them and they clearly showed whether it was daylight or not, and more.

But if that does not satisfy you - re the programme I am using,

Accuracy and Systems of Time

Numerically speaking, most of what you see presented by SVC derives from the book Astronomical Algorithms, by Jean Meeus, particularly his simplified versions of the VSOP87 series (P. Bretagnon and G. Francou) and the Chapront ELP 2000/82 lunar theory. The accuracy of these calculations is stated to be much better than one minute of arc, and typically within just a few arc seconds. No specific range of time validity is mentioned, but context leads me to believe that high accuracy is retained for several centuries before and after the year 2000. The accuracy is easily better than the pixel resolution of your computer screen.

 

[Rramjet]

If you even bothered to read and understand what people write you wouldn't be battling those funky strawmen. What I'm saying is that we must favor the known over the unknown until it is shown that the known cannot account for the observation. It's a pragmatic decision, not a logical one, because otherwise we'd be chasing nonsense most of the time instead of doing actual science.

What then is your "known" in the Tehran or Father Gill cases? If there IS NO "known", then how can you "favour" it? What YOU are in fact doing is trying to explain one unknown with another unknown - and that IS illogical!

 

[Belgian thought]

er.... like you RJ.

 

[Sledge]

Rear radar? The part of the phrase NONE of you highlighted was "RADAR AND..." (selective attention deficit?)

No, you're going to have to explain what you mean here.

To my uninitiated eye RADAR means RADAR. That is; RAdio Detection And Ranging! But if I am wrong about that then so be it...

You are wrong. We've explained why. Are you intelligent enough to understand why you're wrong, and man enough to admit it? There's no shame in admitting you lacked knowledge and seeking clarifications from people. There is shame in ignoring the facts because they tell you something you don't want to hear.

Besides that was just a small part of my post...what about the other F-4 specs Puddle Duck is "mistaken" (to put it politely) about. Why don't you all call HIM out in the same manner you do me?

Because he's... sorry, let me put this in a way you'll understand: Because HE'S not being an ARROGANT, ignorant "fool." Do YOU see?

Hypocrisy? YOU BET!

No.

 

[Rramjet]

So details regarding the times of sightings should be ignored - I am sure you stated 18:00, DAYLIGHT - your caps,and then around 6PM and then and then...., I am now lost with your reasoning.

To date, thanks to you, we have been unable to pinpoint a time of the sightings.

How can we take this any further?

How about trying to explain what the (at least) 39 witnesses saw described (and apparently signed statements as well!)?

What about the pictures of the skies? I liked them and they clearly showed whether it was daylight or not, and more.

But if that does not satisfy you - re the programme I am using,

Accuracy and Systems of Time

Numerically speaking, most of what you see presented by SVC derives from the book Astronomical Algorithms, by Jean Meeus, particularly his simplified versions of the VSOP87 series (P. Bretagnon and G. Francou) and the Chapront ELP 2000/82 lunar theory. The accuracy of these calculations is stated to be much better than one minute of arc, and typically within just a few arc seconds. No specific range of time validity is mentioned, but context leads me to believe that high accuracy is retained for several centuries before and after the year 2000. The accuracy is easily better than the pixel resolution of your computer screen.

I am still not satisfied. The world is a big place and the timing depends entirely on a precise location. Where precisely is the location for the sunset times you propose?

 

[Rramjet]

(...).. sorry, let me put this in a way you'll understand: Because HE'S not being an ARROGANT, ignorant "fool." Do YOU see?

Ah yes... I was wondering when the bully boy tactics would be wheeled out, it didn't take as long as I expected. Run out of rational argument have you Sledge? Pity, I was just getting warmed up!

 

[Belgian thought]

I am still not satisfied. The world is a big place and the timing depends entirely on a precise location. Where precisely is the location for the sunset times you propose?

The coordinates for Boainai - where else?

 

[Sledge]

Ah yes... I was wondering when the bully boy tactics would be wheeled out, it didn't take as long as I expected. Run out of rational argument have you Sledge? Pity, I was just getting warmed up!

Rational argument is wasted on you, given your inability to respond to it. You can prove me wrong by answering my question: do you understand why you were wrong about the radar receiver?

 

[Astrophotographer]

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?

Pirouzi did in his Pratt interview (See the MUFON link given by Access denied). It reflects on the accuracy of the report. If Pirouzi could not figure out where the jet flew to, what does it mean about his knowledge about the events associated with the intercept?

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?

A. There is no evidence that the F-4's avionics were positively disabled by the UFO.

B. There is no evidence that it actually performed the maneuvers stated with the exception of a pilot who was wildly maneuvering his plane.

C. Piourzi seemed to indicate the UFO simply stayed in place and slowly climbed in the sky over a period of hours. That kind of statement indicates a possible astronomical explanation (at least for his UFO sighting). If you want to ignore this part of the testimony, that is your right but not mentioning it indicates you have either not read all the testimony or are attempting to deceive everyone about potential explanations. That is very UNscientific of you.

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”.

Just because a pilot says something does not mean it actually happened that way. I sugget you look at the history of the airliner that crashed into the river (washington DC) in the early 1980s. The pilots screwed up and did not even notice. In the case, the pilot may have thought he did something, but his error could have produced the problems. Of course, poor maintenance of the jet could also have caused issues with the aircraft.

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.

According to the table (i.e. evidence) he provided everyone, it could not reach mach 2 with the tanks. Can you provide evidence to suggest otherwise?

 

[Toke]

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

Rramjet appear to be a great radar target.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

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!

Oilwell fires. They can do all of that. Pursuing and surrounding an investigating aircraft is merely the start of their abilities. They can also teleport, deflect missiles, raise tidal waves and make a perfect cheese souffle.

Your refusal to concede the dazzlingly obvious analogy with the Campece incident is so funny I can't decide whether I like it or the rear view radar straw-clutching best.

 

[Nonpareil]

Ah yes... I was wondering when the bully boy tactics would be wheeled out, it didn't take as long as I expected. Run out of rational argument have you Sledge? Pity, I was just getting warmed up!

Time to wheel out my favorite picture!

 

[Toke]

Cars can be equiped with radar warning devices that will go beep if a police officer try to point a radar speed meter at you.

Planes can be equiped with radar warning devices that will go beep if somebody try to point a missile at you.

None of them will give you a range to your adversary.

 

[Akhenaten]

Blimps are equipped with radar that goes beep if you point ANYTHING at them.