UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Toke]

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.

No problem, but I doubt Rramjet will look up anything likely to disturb his fantasies. And no matter how much you simplify it it will not penetrate if in conflict with the fantasy.

 

[Sledge]

What's annoying is that you'd think anyone with half a brain could see the flaw in his position: radar works via transmitting and receiving radar signals. A receiver on it's own isn't the same thing, unless possibly the thing transmitting radar signals is using a known system. I'm not a former pilot or anything, but I thought this was fairly common knowledge.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Common knowledge isn't a sufficient level of proof for Rr to admit he's wrong. You'll note that he wants "proof that the “radar” in the statement is misleading and that the system is “purely” an “homing and warning” without radar capability" before he'll admit he's in the bottom of a deep hole he himself dug. Of course the term radar is not remotely misleading and without radar capability is a weasel term which indicates his intention to continue to pretend he misunderstands.

 

[Sledge]

By his standard we'll never be able to prove him wrong, because of course the system DOES have radar capability. He just doesn't understand (or won't acknowledge) what that means in the context of the warning system.

 

[Astrophotographer]

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?

Reading the MUFON file, it seems the principle witness to all of this was Pirouzi and the report filed by Mooy. Pirouzi has presented information that is in conflict with Mooy's report (he states they saw a UFO over the F-4 as it attempted to land but Mooy states the tower did not see the UFO reported by the crew at this moment) and the interview with the general (He states they went to the Afghan border and the general says that did not happen). Pirouzi is the bulk of the information to the story and it appears that some of what he has stated is inaccurate (we can add the mach 2 with tanks until Rramjet proves it is possible to do this). If this is the case, then how reliable is his testimony? Is it possible it is as flawed as most eyewitness testimony and susceptible to error? If so, the more extraordinary parts of his observations he reports may be considered the least reliable and probably due to poor memory/misperception/hearing what he wanted to hear/confabulation/etc. He could be accurate but he also could have been in error.

 

[Rramjet]

Tehran incident..the next step

Okay...so far my approach to the Tehran thing has been ad hoc but I can see now it needs a more directed approach. I think it might be useful to create a document listing the relevant personnel, events, documents mentioned, arguments for/against etc... this will obviously take a day or so (optimism -as you may have noted -is a trait of mine . I will therefore have to spend some time creating such a document (with relevant links to the info available). Hopefully that will answer and forestall some of the questions that are being raised - in a coherent fashion.

As for the RADAR thing. I AM willing to admit a mistake there... but I am still not entirely convinced by the explanations offered so far... there DOES seem to be some difference of opinion on the matter... why has the system a "display" (what does it consist of) as well as an auditory indicator? I have tried to look up the specs of the AN/APR-36/37 but not much luck... CAN it transmit for example? If it cannot then WHAT WAS the transmitting radar system installed on the F4-E? As you can see, legitimate questions remain.

Anyway, may or may not post in the next day or so until I have my doc ready.

Cheers,
Roger.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I think it might be useful to create a document listing the relevant personnel, events, documents mentioned, arguments for/against etc...

I agree. A lot of work for possibly little gain, I'm afraid, but it would make it a lot clearer what the provenence of each piece of information was.

As for the RADAR thing. I AM willing to admit a mistake there... but I am still not entirely convinced by the explanations offered so far... there DOES seem to be some difference of opinion on the matter...

Hooray for that. I must say I was unaware of any material difference of opinion (saving your own).

 

[Correa Neto]

I think its time to remember Rramjet of Ray Hyman's categorical directive

“Before we try to explain something, we should be sure it actually happened”

Might save him some work...

 

[Belgian thought]

That is simply not fair!

I still do not even have confirmation from RJ as to where and what time Papa Gill et al. saw the waving aliens. You lot have had lots of radars, jets, pilots etc..

In the meantime, I guess I will just have to learn some more from here... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ripSM

 

[Sledge]

Rramjet, there is no difference of opinion on "the radar thing." The matter has been explained to you. What do you not understand that leads you to think there is a difference of opinion?

 

[Marduk]

Okay...so far my approach to the Tehran thing has been ad hoc but I can see now it needs a more directed approach. I think it might be useful to create a document listing the relevant personnel, events, documents mentioned, arguments for/against etc... this will obviously take a day or so (optimism -as you may have noted -is a trait of mine . I will therefore have to spend some time creating such a document (with relevant links to the info available). Hopefully that will answer and forestall some of the questions that are being raised - in a coherent fashion.

As for the RADAR thing. I AM willing to admit a mistake there... but I am still not entirely convinced by the explanations offered so far... there DOES seem to be some difference of opinion on the matter... why has the system a "display" (what does it consist of) as well as an auditory indicator? I have tried to look up the specs of the AN/APR-36/37 but not much luck... CAN it transmit for example? If it cannot then WHAT WAS the transmitting radar system installed on the F4-E? As you can see, legitimate questions remain.

Anyway, may or may not post in the next day or so until I have my doc ready.

Cheers,
Roger.

you are not a credible researcher Roger, and anything you produce has already been shown to not be credible either, creating a document to support your already preconceived ideas is not going to be credible or acceptable
in other words
don't waste our time

 

[Astrophotographer]

I can predict more cherry picking to present only one side of the argument. As the MUFON file indicates there seems to be certain aspects of the case that there are disagreement upon between various witnesses. We do not even know the true rank of the pilot and what his level of experience was.

 

[gambling_cruiser]

Snip
I have tried to look up the specs of the AN/APR-36/37 but not much luck... CAN it transmit for example? If it cannot then WHAT WAS the transmitting radar system installed on the F4-E?
Snip

Roger, your own source (from Block 42 ....) shows the AN/APQ-120 as the multi-purpose radar set of the F4-E. This was a necessary change because due to the inside 20mm cannon in the nose was not enough space for the bigger radar sets of the F4-C/D.
Do you own a radio or tv-set? Can they broadcast? No, they can't because they are receivers only for radio and tv transmissions.
The same is valid for the APR-36/37 - it's a receiver only to warn against radar emissions of enemy radars. The acoustic warning tells the pilot something bad is happening (like a missile is on the way to him), the display shows the direction of the threat (which direction is the enemy radar transmitter located).
If this description is not good enough for you, then i can't help you.

 

[Jocce]

Okay...so far my approach to the Tehran thing has been ad hoc but I can see now it needs a more directed approach. I think it might be useful to create a document listing the relevant personnel, events, documents mentioned, arguments for/against etc...

Not necessary, we got that already. It's called the routing slip.

 

[Laton]

The APR-36/37 is an improved version of the AN/APR-25

See here:

w ww.designation-systems.net/usmilav/jetds/an-apr2aps.html

(remove the space in w ww)

Photo's of the cockpit receiver display here:

w ww.prc68.com/I/RWR.shtml#APR25

Scoll down to the AN/APR-36 section.

 

[kittynh]

this is still going on? What fun.

 

[amb]

I can predict more cherry picking to present only one side of the argument. As the MUFON file indicates there seems to be certain aspects of the case that there are disagreement upon between various witnesses. We do not even know the true rank of the pilot and what his level of experience was.

It matters little what level of experience the pilot has. Pilots are not infallible as the pope claims to be. They have reported many UFOs that turned out to be naturally explained.

 

[Marcus]

this is still going on? What fun.

It was a blimp.

 

[Astrophotographer]

It matters little what level of experience the pilot has. Pilots are not infallible as the pope claims to be. They have reported many UFOs that turned out to be naturally explained.

Oh...I agree. However, the story as it stands now is that we had a pilot who was either an experienced Major/Lt Col. and possibly the squadron commander OR just a LT. We do not even know if Jafari's training had included some night flying/intercept operations.

In either case, pilots can, and do, make mistakes that include errors in judgement, failure to operate their craft properly causing malfunctions, and misperceptions. I could list dozens of civilian and military aircraft pilots with plenty of experience making these errors. This includes pursuing UFOs that turned out to be stars (I can think of three cases at the moment). Instead of accepting the possibility that Jafari erred and/or that the aircraft may have had some malfunctioning avionics, we are told that the UFO influenced the aircraft. No big surprise here.

 

[kittynh]

Like Flight 19. Evidence proves gross lead pilot error.

Larry Kusche also determined that the later "clearing" of Charles Taylor, lead pilot, was due to massive pressure from the families of the survivors. Charles Taylors mother and aunt waged a campaign to have his name cleared also. Lets just say the government decided to be merciful to two elderly ladies that never got over the death of their spoiled, hard partying and crash happy darling boy. It wasn't his first f#kc up.


It wasn't aliens, it was human error. A lot of pilots make mistakes or go "what in the heck is THAT?" perception is different when flying and an awareness of those differences is important in flight safety. Planes crash for a reason.