UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[TjW]

Well, certainly he could have relayed it. He had a radio. The question is, how useful is the information? A UFO could certainly emit RF at frequencies used by Soviet radar. It could even do so at the exact same ERP as a Soviet targeting radar, making the range displayed moderately accurate.
But then I'd think an actual Soviet radar would be a more likely explanation. You need to either give up the idea that the radar warning receiver gives good range information on unknown targets, or give up the idea that it was an alien craft of some sort. Which will it be?

And all we have is the fact that he gave some range information. The use of the radar warning receiver as the source of the information, is, as far as I can tell, entirely speculation by you.

 

[JCL]

Ramjet, is it your contention that aliens use Russian manufactured radar to track earthlings?

 

[Rramjet]

I stated:
Actually it is a FACT that whenever the F-4s approached the UFO within a certain distance their avionics were detrimentally affected. THAT is a FACT.

No, its not. If it were, we would have substantial evidence for that. One would think that a 'scientist' would know the difference between knowing and assuming.

And even if it was true, it wouldn't indicate alien tech, even EW systems from that day can really mess around.

You now deny the first hand accounts and prefer to rely on second, third and fourth hand interpretations of those same accounts to make your points.

Remember Evans? ““I was an intelligence analyst," said Major Evans. "This (Iran incident) came through as a routine intelligence analysis. I was given the report because my field is electronic warfare. The DIA intelligence community is broken up by region. Within each region we have some specialties. I was in the Middle East region and I was an air defense expert. I was given this particular case because of my electronic warfare and air defense field.”

(emphasis added Rr)

“This was a classic case because everything that was bizarre about it was confirmed with real sources," he told me. "We don't have this capability to jam all these systems simultaneously.”

"We had several other messages that someone would attribute to UFOs," said Major Evans. "I didn't pay much attention to them, but I felt this particular case was very interesting. Here we had a case where we had a visual sighting from three different locations, three different angles, by highly qualified people and they were confirmed by radar from three different points.

"The electromagnetic effects were very interesting to me as an electronic warfare officer, and the fact that this thing was so highly manoeuvrable impressed me quite a bit. As an electronic warfare officer, I would love to go into combat with the capability of turning off my opponent's weapon system panel at will, and to be able to figure out when he's going to turn it on, and to cut off his communications. (http://www.cohenufo.org/iran.htm)

Your accounts are little more then hearsay.

Yeah… “hearsay”. Keep waving your arms… you might fly soon!

I stated:
WHAT is the POINT of withholding such evidence as radar tapes, tower conversations, etc? If it IS as you contend, then the information from such sources would support that contention... but it is not forthcoming. Suspicious? YOU BET!

Lets see of possibilities:
- Too much work
- Pieces are already gone/disposed (room cost money)
- They may contain hints to classified procedures or other classified data.

They seem to put a GREAT deal of effort into withholding the evidence… their many letters of denial could be done away with if they simply just released the data…

They keep (in your words) the “hearsay” evidence (then release that) and throw away the “real” data? You people amaze me…

If, as you all contend, there is NOTHING to these cases and they are all just “woo”, then WHAT “hints” to “classified” information could they possibly contain?

No, Your “possibilities” are simply nonsensical in the light of this case.

 

[Jocce]

The quote I provided clearly states that the DISTANCE is estimated from the distance of image the from the centre of the display. THAT has NOTHING to do with signal strength…

This would be hilarious if it wasn't such a sad sad insight into a deluded mind. Maybe you would like to explain how the little display "knows" how far away from the center it is supposed to place the dot? A unicorn tells it?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Ignore my statements if you like but I will keep repeating the FACTS. Puddle Duck contended that it was impossible for Jafari to have relayed distance information from an object behind him. I have CLEARLY DEMONSTRATED this to be a false proposition. When are you all going to admit that FACT?

You have grasped that the F-4 can give an estimated distance to an object behind it, but apparently you have not grasped that this is only so long as the object is one of a particular group of Soviet-built weapons, and that it is illuminating the F-4 with its radar.

When are you going to admit that FACT?

ETA: PD contended that it was impossible for Jafari to have relayed distance information from an unidentified object behind him. Get over it.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

They seem to put a GREAT deal of effort into withholding the evidence.

Withholding information generally requires no effort whatever.

 

[Rramjet]

This would be hilarious if it wasn't such a sad sad insight into a deluded mind. Maybe you would like to explain how the little display "knows" how far away from the center it is supposed to place the dot? A unicorn tells it?

I posted the information previously… perhaps you should actually read the information and evidence presented to you before posting such nonsense again? Here is part of it... go and read the rest for yourself...

“The RWR usually has a visual display somewhere prominent … The distance from the center of the circle, depending on the type of unit, can represent the estimated distance from the generating radar…” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radar_warning_receiver)

I have made NO claims on the matter outside the demonstration that the F-4 HAS the capability to determine distance information of an object behind it. THAT has been my ONLY contention ALL along and I HAVE been proved correct in that contention

Ignore my statements if you like but I will keep repeating the FACTS. Puddle Duck contended that it was impossible for Jafari to have relayed distance information from an object behind him. I have CLEARLY DEMONSTRATED this to be a false proposition. When are you all going to admit that FACT?

 

[Jocce]

I have only claimed (for this case) that the UFO exhibited intelligent control and exhibited capabilities beyond the technological capabilities of the time (and NOW as well).

Bull****, you don't know where the limits are and besides, people can fly and shine bright lights.

I then claim that this supports my "alien" hypothesis (in that there was demonstrated intelligent control of the UFO and it had technological abilities we cannot match). Can YOU come up with a reasonable explanation that is in accord with the verified evidence of the case?

Russian intelligence, american intelligence, swedish intelligence, an act of god, fighting unicorns, santas sled..do I need to go on?

This is NOT a personal bias. It is a hypothetical based on the evidence presented in the case. In other words, the hypothesis FITS the evidence.

As does santas sled, american intelligence, an act of god. However, I can't prove that americans or santa had access to the necessary technology, can u prove that aliens had? Nope, didn't think so. You base your conclusion on your belief system.

On the other hand, you have come up with precisely NO alternative explanations that fit the evidence.

Santas sled could do this. I know Rudolf is said to be pretty agile.

What would the radar tapes etc tell you that is not already on the record?

It would show if the record is correct.

We have FIRST HAND witness accounts that radar contact WAS made, we have FIRST HAND witness accounts of the tower conversations and we have FIRST HAND witness accounts of the planes' (avionics) maintenance status.

You got stories you read on the interwebs.

As you well know, all such "hard" evidence in military cases (especially) that you require invariably "disappears" into the black hole of the US "intelligence" machine - never to be released, even under FOIA requests.

I was waiting for this. Enter....drum roll.....The Conspiracy! The gobment is "in on it"

THAT is another FACT for you Astrophotographer. Of course the obvious question is then WHY don't they release such information?

Got any proof that they have more information?

If as you contend there is nothing to these cases except witness misidentification etc, then WHAT is the POINT of withholding such evidence as radar tapes, tower conversations, etc?

Ahem, absens of evidence is not proof of a conspiracy. Maybe, just maybe, there is no more information? Got any proof suggesting something else?

If it IS as you contend, then the information from such sources would support that contention... but it is not forthcoming. Suspicious? YOU BET!

Yeah, they must withhold information because otherwise the proof would be available. You're a funny guy.

 

[Jocce]

I posted the information previously… perhaps you should actually read the information and evidence presented to you before posting such nonsense again?

Evasion of this question duly noted. So I repeat. How does the display know how far away from the center to put the dot? Is it by magic?

 

[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.

Ramjet ?

 

[wollery]

I'm sorry Rramjet, but anyone who can read the statement,

The distance from the center of the circle, depending on the type of unit, can represent the estimated distance from the generating radar

and think it means that the distance to any radar emitter, even one of unknown type and power, will automatically be known, is no scientist.

Don't bother talking about the radar system and what the readings can tell you until you've read an authoritative source on how radar works. Because you clearly have no idea, and it's making you look like a complete idiot.

 

[gambling_cruiser]

Ignore my statements if you like but I will keep repeating the FACTS. Puddle Duck contended that it was impossible for Jafari to have relayed distance information from an object behind him. I have CLEARLY DEMONSTRATED this to be a false proposition. When are you all going to admit that FACT?

I have made no claims on the matter outside the demonstration that the F-4 HAS the capability to determine distance information of an object behind it. THAT has been my ONLY contention ALL along and I HAVE been proved correct in that contention.

No you have not.
Only an active radar shows up on the warning display. Do you suggest the ufo was equipped with a russian radar?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Puddle Duck contended that it was impossible for Jafari to have relayed distance information from an object behind him. I have CLEARLY DEMONSTRATED this to be a false proposition. When are you all going to admit that FACT?

If it had been your contention that Jafari was being chased by a MIG, and if it had been PD's contention that Jafari could not have relayed distance information for that particular type of object, then you would have a point.

But neither is true, so you do not.

 

[AWPrime]

I stated:
Actually it is a FACT that whenever the F-4s approached the UFO within a certain distance their avionics were detrimentally affected. THAT is a FACT.

You now deny the first hand accounts and prefer to rely on second, third and fourth hand interpretations of those same accounts to make your points.

Actually that would be you. You don't even have a shred of direct evidence. You mostly rely on UFO magazines and enthusiasts. This is little more then biased hearsay.

They seem to put a GREAT deal of effort into withholding the evidence… their many letters of denial could be done away with if they simply just released the data…

They keep (in your words) the “hearsay” evidence (then release that) and throw away the “real” data? You people amaze me…

It generally takes no effort to deny, a standard letter or a stamp takes less then a minute, and on the other hand actually giving the information can take hours of work. And government employees will always try to minimize their workload.

If, as you all contend, there is NOTHING to these cases and they are all just “woo”, then WHAT “hints” to “classified” information could they possibly contain?

Names, procedures, etc.

 

[Astrophotographer]

Actually it is a FACT that whenever the F-4s approached the UFO within a certain distance their avionics were detrimentally affected. THAT is a FACT. The key is what we DO with that fact. Do we simply assign it to "coincidence - as you seem to want to do? That seems highly unlikely. According to the evidence it happened EVERY time the F-4s got close to the UFO and all was okay again when the F-4s traveled away from the UFO. It is like sticking your hand in a fire. You get burned (practically) every time - but you want to make a coincidence of that type of relationship!? If it did NOT happen EVERY time the jets approached the UFO then you MAY have a better case. But it occurred EVERY time!

Are you sure it was EVERY TIME? What established this fact? What physical evidence do we have that proves that the F-4s lost avionics EVERY TIME they approached the UFO at a specific distance? All we have are claims made that this was the case but it is NOT A FACT that it happened EVERY TIME and that the same avionics was lost on both aircraft.

 

[Rramjet]

Bull****, you don't know where the limits are and besides, people can fly and shine bright lights.

Russian intelligence, american intelligence, swedish intelligence, an act of god, fighting unicorns, santas sled..do I need to go on?

As does santas sled, american intelligence, an act of god. However, I can't prove that americans or santa had access to the necessary technology, can u prove that aliens had? Nope, didn't think so. You base your conclusion on your belief system.

Santas sled could do this. I know Rudolf is said to be pretty agile.

And all that passes in your mind for rational argument?

Remember Evans? ““I was an intelligence analyst," said Major Evans. "This (Iran incident) came through as a routine intelligence analysis. I was given the report because my field is electronic warfare. The DIA intelligence community is broken up by region. Within each region we have some specialties. I was in the Middle East region and I was an air defense expert. I was given this particular case because of my electronic warfare and air defense field.”

(emphasis added Rr)

“This was a classic case because everything that was bizarre about it was confirmed with real sources," he told me. "We don't have this capability to jam all these systems simultaneously.”

"We had several other messages that someone would attribute to UFOs," said Major Evans. "I didn't pay much attention to them, but I felt this particular case was very interesting. Here we had a case where we had a visual sighting from three different locations, three different angles, by highly qualified people and they were confirmed by radar from three different points.

"The electromagnetic effects were very interesting to me as an electronic warfare officer, and the fact that this thing was so highly manoeuvrable impressed me quite a bit. As an electronic warfare officer, I would love to go into combat with the capability of turning off my opponent's weapon system panel at will, and to be able to figure out when he's going to turn it on, and to cut off his communications. (http://www.cohenufo.org/iran.htm)

I stated:
What would the radar tapes etc tell you that is not already on the record?

It would show if the record is correct.

Just because you make such a huge unfounded assumption does NOT make it a correct one!

You got stories you read on the interwebs.

So according to you the whole thing is made up and everyone involved in the case is a liar?

I stated:
As you well know, all such "hard" evidence in military cases (especially) that you require invariably "disappears" into the black hole of the US "intelligence" machine - never to be released, even under FOIA requests.

I was waiting for this. Enter....drum roll.....The Conspiracy! The gobment is "in on it"

You actually cut my quote short… I went on “THAT is a FACT for you…” Not a conspiracy, Just a simple statement of fact. The evidence for this is simply incontrovertible. Deny it if you will, ridicule it if you will, it does NOT alter the FACT of the matter.

And if YOUR implication that everyone involved in the case is a liar is NOT a “conspiracy” of the highest calibre… Ughhh ...hypocrisy? YOU BET!

 

[Astrophotographer]

Pirouzi ONLY stated that both the UFO and F-4 were "heading toward the border with Afghanistan". THAT is a DIRECTION, NOT A LOCATION.

Hmmm...I am trying to figure out why the Enquirer stated the following about his interview with Pirouzi:

"Then began a cat and mouse game that took the Phantom all the way to the Afghanistan border in the east and back again to Teheran".

Memorandum for the Record: “During the time that the object passed over the F-4 the tower did not have a visual on it but picked it up after the pilot told them to look between the mountains and the refinery.”

But Pirouzi is once again on record as stating (or at least implying to the reporter:

"As the pilot came screaming past over the control tower, Pirouzi and his colleagues say they saw a dark rectangular form almost sitting on top of the jet."

Seems like a contradiction if you ask me.

Again, WHY would Jafari lie? He has NO need to do so. Being a Lt. would NOT have made his story any less believable. Again you take second(third and fourth) hand accounts over first hand evidence. Hypocrisy? YOU BET!

It is not hypocrisy. It is probable that a person who was on alert in the middle of the night would not be the squadron leader. It would be a lower ranking officer. That would be the rank of a LT. Jafari could be lying about his rank. We have reason to question his claim. Why are you so blindly willing to accept his claim.

No, I have stated my position a number of times now. Actually it is a FACT that whenever the F-4s approached the UFO within a certain distance their avionics were detrimentally affected.

Let's clear this up a bit. Exactly what specific distance was it and what avionics were affected. I have heard various items but I want you to list the actual distance and what specific functions failed.

The rest of your rant is just nonsense. Bring us the actual evidence. Otherwise your evidence is no better than what Klass wrote from his sources.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

You got stories you read on the interwebs.

So according to you the whole thing is made up and everyone involved in the case is a liar?

False dichotomy.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Say, Rramjet, didn't you have an ambition to collate a list of your various documents and describe their provenance?

Do you have a list of, say, all the various references to Jafari's rank?

 

[Laton]

From the link I posted in #3575

AN/APR-25

1966 vector receiver (the small CRT showed the relative bearing to the threat as the angle from center screen, and the distance from center screen was a relative distance to the threat, made by Itek used to detect:

* S-band emissions from SA-2s
* early warning ground-control radars
* C-band radiations from the improved SA-2 radars
* X-band characteristics of airborne intercept radars

S/X/C-Band Radar Detection and Homing Set; manufactured by Itek; part of AN/ALQ-27; used in A-7E, U-8, U-21, OV-1D, B-52G, RA-5C, A-6E, F-4, F-14, F-100, F-105, C-123, C-130

and

AN/APR-36

Homing and Warning ECM Receiver (improved AN/APR-25); manufactured by Itek; used in F-105, EF-4E, A-7, B-52, F-5E/F

So here's the thing - it's designed to pickup and display specific radar (ie Soviet) bands. If the Iranian F-4's RHWR equipment was getting readings then it would be a safe bet it was a Soviet radar in action, unless you think that alien' happen to be using Russian equipment.

Note this bit: and the distance from center screen was a relative distance to the threat. Not a specific distance measurement. If the blip on the display is close to the center of screen then the emitter is close to the aircraft, if its near the edge of screen, its further away.