UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Marduk]

Okaaaay…let me try again.

whats the point, do you seriously think any misunderstood data or lies youre going to come up with now is going to convince anyone that you have any credibility left this late in the game.
that actually ended with your first post, sorry you didn't have the sense to realise it, but thats the way your cookie crumbled

 

[Astrophotographer]

First, Pratt did NOT interview Pirouzi! Second, Pirouzi is a firsthand witness and being in “control” of the F-4s would have had positional data on them. We only have General Azarbarzin (a non-participant) claiming that the “border” was incorrect. Who do you believe? A firsthand witness account or an account derived from other (unidentified) sources?

Well, somebody from the Enquirer interviewed him because it was part of the files that Pratt sent to MUFON.

What evidence do you have that Pirouzi had positional data? Was he tracking the F-4 or was he just repeating what he thought happened? I thought the General was at the pilot debriefing (or at least he stated he interviewed the crews), where such things would have been discussed. Since Pirouzi was not a participant in the intercept, we can not consider him a "first hand" witness. Can you demonstrate he was there tracking the planes on radar or was he busy outside staring at the "UFO"?

A. Well, it would seem a reasonable assumption to make considering that every time the F-4s approached the UFO within 25nm their avionics WERE disabled and that when one of the F-4s tried to fire a missile at the UFO (or at least at part of it) the weapons system went down. Coincidence?

How many times did the plane lose avionics (I believe Pirouzi states that one kept losing the navigational data but the rest of the plane was performing fine)? I was under the impression it was only once. If you want to take one data point and draw a conclusion, then you are a bad scientist indeed.

B. You really are the “red herring” expert aren’t you! “Wildly manoeuvring his plane”! Ha! This is of course yet another claim of incompetence on behalf of the pilots! But we KNOW Jafari at least was a Major and a squadron leader…in other words an experienced pilot. Now if you had gone with flying with Puddle Duck and “inverted” your plane in the face of avionics malfunction… then I might be inclined to believe you, but there WERE NO “wild manoeuvres” from the F-4s at the time! Your assertion is just plain incorrect! Besides, you “conveniently” forget the events described by Pirouzi and the descriptions derived from interviews with the pilots in the memorandum by Mooy.

Demonstrate Jafari was a major at the time. All the reports at the time refer to him as a LT. Still, rank does not make a pilot impervious to error. The air Florida flight 90 pilots were highly trained as well but they failed at the critical time and crashed their plane. How many other airplane crashes and mistakes can be blamed on pilot error?

The pilot was pursuing the object but never claimed it was moving erratically (at least the Mooy report does not state this). Only when he made a turn to evade the second object did he claim that the UFO started to pursue him.

Once again, Pirouzi was not in the plane and anything associated with the plane's actions can not be considered first hand as far as his testimony is concerned.

C. Selective attention deficit troubling you lately Astrophotographer? Perhaps you simply have NOT read Pirouzi’s account? Or are you deliberately trying to mislead? Of course it IS the latter. I suggest you go back and READ Pirouzi’s account and you will see your obvious error. As a First hand witness he describes the UFOs shape shifting ability. He also describes the “instantaneous” shifting of position by the UFO. As Tower Controller, he also describes what the pilots were reporting back to him about the UFO… you really do try hard to limit the damage to the UFO debunker cause this case represents, but it is plain for anyone who has actually read the accounts that you are simply deceptive and selective in your information disclosure (at the very least!)..

Shape shifting is something eyewitnesses say when they discuss observing stars that scintillate. You still have not bothered to get Hendry's book have you? Hendry also describes how witnesses felt their stars moved and followed them home in their cars as well.

Yes of course, pilots make errors. In a “combat” situation a highly trained pilot turns off his weapons system instead of firing a missile. Yes… that makes sense… and poor maintenance? Now I know that the US most definitely has (or at least until relatively recently DID have) an extremely poor record when it comes to the maintenance of its military aircraft… but to extrapolate that to another country WOULD seem to be making unfounded assumptions. Besides, the planes WERE examined by avionics engineers shortly after and NOTHING was found to be wrong with them!

Yes, pilots do make errors in combat. This is why a pilot most often gets shot down by another pilot. He makes a critical error under the stress of combat. Do you even know anything about aerial combat? I have never been a pilot but I have read books and watched numerous programs where fighter pilots described how they defeated their opponents. I also have read/heard of pilots messing up in the middle of combat and losing a kill. It happens and it stands to reason that it happened here. Especially with a pilot, who had NO combat experience and who's experience about flying at night is questioned.

As for your complete misrepresentation about US maintenance abilities, I find that idiotic. What you appear to be stating is the Iranians were the world's best technicians, who maintained the aircraft in perfect condition? That was not the case according to Klass's source (which is just as good as Maccabee's source since both were anonymous):
When the McDonnel Douglas tech rep managed to get close enough to the F-4 in the revetment to read its registration number and examined his own records, he had made a significant discovery, TR-2 told me: this F-4 had a long history of intermittent elecrtic-power-system outages, which the IIAF maintenance shop at Shahrokhi had neve been able to permanently cure. This was confirmed by TR-1, who also told me: "The electrical shop at Shahrokhi was notorious for poor perforamnce with respect to the other shops!"
During the course of TR-2's investigation, he told me that he had talked to Iranian maintenance crews to ask if they had checked the F-4 following the UFO incident. "They claimed that they did and that the only thing they found wrong was that one of the radios had some static in it," TR-2 told me. (UFOs: The public deceived p118-119)

Intermittent problems do not always show up on a check. I can speak from personal experience. We had a piece of electronic gear that gave problems every so often for several months. We could not identify where the fault signal was coming from. Eventually, we noticed it happened occasionally after we had closed/opened a certain instrument drawer. After several days of troubleshooting the circuits in that drawer, we discovered it was a bad solder joint on a diode. I am sure various technicians also have such "sea stories".

What table? You mean the one that does NOT relate to F-4Es? Yeah sure…

However, the air frame for the F-4E is not much different. Once again, can you demonstrate it is possible for Mach two to be achieved by an F-4E flying with tanks. The best evidence available (provided by puddle duck), states this is not possible. You are the one making the claim it is possible. Feel free to present your evidence why you think this is the case.

 

[Astrophotographer]

http://www.ejection-history.org.uk/Country-By-Country/iranian_f_4_phantom_losses.htm

Thanks puddle duck for this link. It indicates that Jafari was a LT at the time and not a major. I think we need more proof that Jafari was a major when the event occurred than simply Rramjet's say so (or Jafari's claim that he was a major at the time).

 

[Access Denied]

Actually, I’m ok with Jafari being the pilot of #2. Without solid evidence that he wasn’t, there are enough other indicators that he was the pilot.

Yeah, normally I would agree with you but I have my reasons, some I’m not prepared to go into here, so don’t mind me..

As a secondary task there, search for Jafari.

Hmm, says he was a Lt. and the copilot (2nd Lt. Keyvana) almost ejected. The names Pratt gave aren’t listed anywhere there (maybe a good thing) and the name of the pilot of the first jet (Gen. Nader Jahanbani, “executed during Revolution”) is different and also different than the one who appeared on the Sightings TV show (Yaddi Nazeri) so I’m not sure what to make of that… the source appears to be British UFOlogist Timothy Good’s widely discredited book “Above Top Secret”.

 

[tsig]

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!...

Are you an alien? You seem to know so much about their motivations and the capability of their ships that you must either be an alien or in their pay.

So alien or traitor to the human race?

 

[Tizzy]

Tizzy, don’t worry about the #1 going at full bore. It never happened. Rramjet was insisting on performance values off PR flyers as being absolute values, that air-to-air alert birds did not carry any drop tanks, because the tanks were ‘auxiliary’ fuel, and that because the bogey was such a threat that they had to get a bird to Tehran to intercept it “immediately”.

Puddle Duck, thank you for your response. My familiarity with the F-4 specifically is limited, so I appreciate the insight.

I also do not have the time to sift through dozens of near-unintelligible posts by the arguer (or defender, I don't know what he is now) here to find the story without further bias and without finding myself on Iranian websites.

Are there transcripts of the scramble instructions? For either of the two aircraft?

Did either aircraft require the use of their alternates, or did they land back at the base?

I threw that profile up and rounded the numbers just to demonstrate that that mission was impossible. If I get bored I might figure the exact fuel burns and times from engine start to flame out by drawing on the chart, rather than a finger follow, but don’t count on it.
There is a reason that one of the popular nicknames is “lead sled”. It proves the concept that with enough thrust, even a brick will fly.

Yeah, when I called it a "rocket sled" that's pretty much what I meant. It's a massive plane with a massive amount of static thrust, it doesn't exactly sip fuel, and it's glide ratio is terrible. I've never flown one and can't comment on having to deadstick a landing, but I did it on an aircraft that was much more forgiving in that regard. The term I hear used most often is, "aerodynamics of a grand piano" for the real atrocious aircraft. Burn rates would be interesting, but I understand if you don't have the time.

I can’t compare weapons with the F-16, since I don’t know that bird, but look at this
w wwmstewart.net/subob/fighters/f4.pdf delete the space after the first w.
This is a pdf of parts of the Dash 1. Go to page 3 and look at the section that says “main panel area”. There are two separate weapons panels there. One on a subpanel at the bottom corresponding to #50 on the diagram is the “weapons panel, and is used for any freefall ordnance. It was not used in this instance.
The other is the “missile panel” consisting of the status panel #27 on the diagram, and the control panel #32 on the diagram, and is used for forward firing ordnance. This is the one that was used. The switches are 4 vertical toggles roughly in a row, going from left to right: missile power, missile select, arm, and interlock.
The most probable procedure for an alert bird is to turn on the power switch as soon as feasible after getting airborne. This will allow the status panel to be activated, and tune the Sparrows.
Hell, I was trying to tease out all the different combinations of lights with switch position and I got to the point where I was starting to confuse myself. The important points are missile power on, radar selected, and arm switch on, you get two light on the radar block of the status panel and you can shoot. With “heat” selected, it doesn’t matter where the power switch is and with the arm switch on, you get two lights on the “sw” block and you can shoot the Sidewinder. You don’t need the power switch on. If you have the Sidewinder pointed at a heat source, you get a growl in your headphones, and it will guide, if no growl, it goes ballistic.

This is actually one of the parts that isn't so clear. If the pilot attempted to fire a heat-seeker (of that era), he must have had his head rung from the buzzing, which would mean the target was a heat source. Or he's an idiot.

Actually trying to launch a missile. We don’t know if he was actually over Tehran, but he was close, since the tower chief saw it. The general stated that no one had authorized a weapons launch, so if he did actually launch at an unknown without clearance, I have never heard of any nation that would not have his head on a platter. That would be an easy way to start a war.

This is where the scramble instructions would come in handy. I haven't seen any evidence he was given a shoot down order or permission to engage. The alleged general confirms this. Perhaps I'm nitpicking the finer details of this story, I still think they are important points.

Thanks again for the info.

 

[Access Denied]

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?

Yes, this does seem to present an interesting dilemma for Maccabee and Rramjet doesn’t it? Both cite his testimony extensively to make their case for “aliens” and according to saucer logic, all eyewitnesses are infallible, so if Pirouzi says they headed East towards the Afghan border then we should not question it… in which case, that lends support to Klass who argued they probably saw Jupiter which was, surprise… in the East somewhere, right?

By the way, something I don’t get that maybe you can help me with… since the object wasn’t picked up on ground radar, how did they know where to vector the first jet to since reportedly it was “easily” visible from (implying that it wouldn’t be much further than?) 70 miles away? Just head to Tehran and you’ll see it when you get here? I mean how do you objectively gauge the distance of a “bright thing in the sky“ and is it possible they picked up a completely unrelated bogey on the way? According to Pirouzi the object was “hovering” at 1,000 ft. over the northeastern part of the city (the airport where he was is on the West side) so why did they end up some 40 NM north of Tehran according to the Mooy memo? I must be missing something…

[shrugs]

And now for something completely different…

I was hoping somebody would have picked up on this by now with all the hints I’ve been trying to give but maybe it’s best if I just spell it out so I don’t come across as a complete nutjob…

You know the MUFON file I keep urging people to read? At the very end are copies of the series of FOIA letters that got the McKenzie teletype (aka “routing slip”) released. Recall also that it (or perhaps more likely the Mooy memo) had already been “leaked” to UFO researchers within days of it being sent back to the States. Now note the following initial reason for denying the FOIA request dated 5 JUL 77…

[emphasis mine]

"The OASD(ISA) withholds the entire document under 5 U.S. Code 525b(1), as specifically authorized under the criteria of Executive Order 11652 to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy, since the message "reports unsubstantiated failure of a U.S.-developed tactical weapon system as well as reflecting classified rules of engagement of a friendly power."

And the eventual approval for release with reason for redactions dated 31 AUG 77…

"Deleted portions are withheld at the request of the Department of State, in accordance with 5 U.S. Code 525b(1), as requiring continued classification, since their unauthorized disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause damage to the national security."

And…

"For purposes of the latter [appeal as opposed to judicial review -AD] option, the Department of State Denial Authority in this instance is Mr. Sidney Sober, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State (Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs)."

Hmm… now what do “aliens” (very funny guys, not the “illegal” kind) have to do with the State Department?

Well, let’s see… perhaps what was redacted can offer some clues? Remember what I said about the devil being in the details? Compare the McKenzie teletype (redacted text in bold) to the Mooy memo (detail missing from the teletype in bold) with the text common between them in parentheses…

McKenzie teletype: (the) [IMPERIAL IRANIAN AIR FORCE (IIAF) COMMAND POST] (received four telephone calls from citizens)

Mooy memo: (the) IIAF Command post received a telephone call from the ADOC representative at Mehrabad. He said that Mehrabad had (received four telephone calls from citizens)

McKenzie teletype: [THE COMMAND POST CALLED BG YOUSEFI, ASSISTANT DEPUTY COMMANDER OF OPERATIONS] AFTER HE TOLD THE CITIZENS IT WAS ONLY STARS AND HE CALLED AND HAD TALKED TO THE MEHRABAD TOWER (he decided to look for himself.)

Mooy memo: The citizens were told it was probably only stars. The command post called Brigadier General Yousefi, Assistant Deputy Commander of Operations. After Yousefi talked to Mehrabad tower and determined Babolsar and Shahrokhi radar did not have the object (he decided to look for himself.)

Minor differences? I think not. It would appear whoever passed the Mooy memo to McKenzie changed it to hide the fact that the calls went to the airport (which makes them secondhand accounts relayed by Azarbarzin from Pirouzi to the decision to scramble maker Yousefi) and the object did not appear on military radar.

Now who would have the motive to obfuscate things that might help lead analysts to a more mundane explanation of events?

[e.g. SANFU]

Let me remind you again what else was redacted from the McKenzie teletype…

RO COMMENTS: [C] ACTUAL INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT WAS OBTAINED FROM SOURCE IN CONVERSATION WITH A SUB-SOURCE, AND IIAF PILOT OF ONE OF THE F-4S.

Is the picture becoming any clearer now?

[Rramjet can’t answer that because he’s married to “aliens”]

No? OK good...

 

[Jocce]

I have no reason to doubt that Dr Maccabee did not interview the two avionics technicians as he stated (are you calling him a liar?)

Hmmm, where did he state that?

All the sources and researchers in the case concur on the actual FACTS of the case

All sources? The routing slip is one document, not many.

Facts should be obtained before propounding supposition

It's very hard to get to any facts when you post so much noice.

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.

Hmmm, this is incorrect. He lost communication and weapons control (source routing slip). That is not equivalent to complete loss of avionics. Please, oh please get your facts straight before posting your walls of text.

ETA: At this point I'm starting to think that you are deliberately trying to mislead those who aren't checking the sources. There are too many "accidental" misrepresentations of the few facts we have.

I repeat again for your benefit:

From the Routing Slip concerning the first F-4:

“As the F-4 approached a range of 25 nm he lost all instrumentation and communications”.

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…”

Clear statements of the jet’s avionics being disrupted and disabled. No misinterpretation there!

How can you type that with a straight face? We are talking about the second F-4 which clearly lost only weapons and communications. That doesn't affect a pilots ability to invert the plane or fly it in any manner he likes. You try to lie again.

 

[Jocce]

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?

Ahh, I see moving of the goal posts. So now he didn't loose avionics. He just expects to loose it. Got it...LOLOL

ETA: As if it would matter at all if he lost instrumentation...

 

[Jocce]

According to a number of sources the “loaded” weight of an F-4 is 41000 lbs (NOT 49000) AND “Takeoff roll: 4,490 ft (1,370 m) at 53,814 lb (24,410 kg)!

In a hot environment at high altitude? Funny. You don't even know that you post something completely irrelevant.

 

[Jocce]

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?

What table? You mean the one that does NOT relate to F-4Es? Yeah sure…

Well, maybe you should do some research then, find the E-charts and see if they differ wildly? Or are you just happy to spurt links to dubious interweb sources and let others check your "facts" for you?

 

[Belgian thought]

Okaaaay…let me try again. What are the coordinates you are using?

Lazy sod! 10°01'S, 149°53'E

 

[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)

The key phrase here is: …”radar and homing warning system…” To me that suggests the system had radar functionality.

Now I have already stated I could be wrong about that – but I believe my interpretation is a reasonable interpretation based on THAT statement.

I WILL admit a mistake if ANYONE can show me that the “radar” in the statement is misleading and that the system is “purely” an “homing and warning” without radar capability. Don’t forget the system had audio as well as a display…
Snip

Your research ability is wanting.
Hint: look up the USAF meaning of APR
A airborne
P radar
R receiver
A radar receiver is a passive device.
The display shows the direction of the radar source, but nothing about distance.
How critical it is to know what radar you are looking for shows the Yom Kippur war 1973: The radar warners of the IAF did warn against the radar of SAM 2 sites but not of SAM 3 or SAM 6 sites. Due to this failure the loss rates of the IAF were severe.
So the APR 36/37 would only give any warning/direction (but never distance) if the UFO uses a radar with the characteristics of russian radars!

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Besides, Puddle Duck’s initial contention was that the F-4 was TOTALLY “blind” in the rear. That is nonsense (as is clearly demonstrated).

You have made that false claim before. It was pointed out that it was false then, yet here you are making the same false claim again.

PD's initial contention was that the F-4 had no means of providing ranging information for an object behind it, and that is entirely true.


On the related matter of the radar and homing warning system, I trust that gambling_cruiser's helpful information is enough for you now to honour your promise to admit your mistake. I am at something of a loss to see how you could honestly find the word radar "misleading" in the name of the system, when you have had it patiently explained to you several times over that the radar and homing warning system is a system which warns that it is receiving a radar or homing signal.


After 89 pages of this nonsense and no fragment of evidence that aliens exist, it's become clear to me that you merely intend to repeat the same unsupportable assertions in loser-length posts, over and over, in the hope that everyone else will simply get bored of repeating why you are wrong.

 

[Sledge]

Ok, Rramjet, let's take this very slowly. Radar works by sending out a signal. Because the strength of that signal is known, the strength of any returning signal can be used to determine the distance to the object it bounced off. A radar warning RECEIVER does not transmit signals, as the name clearly states. It receives them. It picks up radar signals being sent out by enemy radar systems. This is a very useful system as it tells you if your aircraft is being illuminated by enemy radar, and if the signal strength has increased to indicate a missile lock-on. What it can't do is detect something that isn't emitting radar signals. For this system to be any use in detecting your postulated alien spacecraft, the alien craft would have to be emitting radar signals on a frequency detectable by the warning system. For range information to be possible, it would be necessary to know at what strength the alien craft was transmitting it's radar signals.

Now, assuming no one leaps in and corrects me, would you care to explain how the radar warning system could be used to detect your UFO?

 

[gambling_cruiser]

The Aliens had stolen the russian radar specs and built a copy to fool the sceptics and make the ufo believers look like a fool?

 

[amb]

It was reported in our local newspaper today [The West Australian.] that the British Ministry of Defence has shut down its UFO investigation unit after 50 years, saying it could no longer justify the cost because no proof of alien visits has ever been found.

Between 1960 and 1971 the Australian RAAF received 595 reports of UFOs, 93% were explained as astronomical, aviation or weather events. 6% did not provide sufficient information to permit proper analysis. Tantalisingly, one percent were attributed to ''unknown causes.''
It's this 1% that Ufologists are like christian fundamentalists hanging on for dear life to a thread that will snap at any moment.

 

[Toke]

Radars get their distance information from the timing of the radar pulses sent out and received, not the strength. The strength of the returning signal gives size of target, the time from sending to receiving gives the distance.
If your ship is parallel to another you can get signal bouncing back and forth a few times and show echoes, looking like more ships behind the first, all at the same distance from each other.

 

[Sledge]

My apologies. I think I have over-simplified. On the other hand, if Rramjet really gave a damn about how radar worked, he could go and look it up instead of continuing to be wrong.

 

[Belz...]

Your post makes no sense at all. Either you understand nothing of what I said, or you simply refuse to agree with me on any point at all.

Something "known" is something science knows exist. Now, I'm not discussing any specific case until you finally understand that "known" things are favoured over "unknown" things by default.

Well, Ramjet ? Do you want to adress this so we can move on ?