UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Astrophotographer]

Of course you are! You STILL have NOT answered my question. I gave you the courtesy of answering your questions to me. Yet you do not answer my questions!

Klass used his source interviews with TR-1 and TR-2. They are just as good as the ones done by Maccabee since both are anonymous.

The account you reference is NOT Pirouzi’s interview. It is a SECOND hand interpretation of the event using selected quotes from Pirouzi.

How do you know that this information did not come from Pirouzi? It was written one month before the interview and Pirouzi was quoted. Therefore, he must have been interviewed. What the author wrote is based on what he learned from Pirouzi and the General. If you want to say this report is totally unreliable, I am going to agree with you. Of course, it makes the MUFON interview just as unreliable.

I love the way you continue to rely on the second-hand accounts and PREFER those OVER the first hand accounts. Your hypocrisy in this matter knows no bounds Astrophotographer. MORE..you again revert to historical revisionism. Pirouzi stated NO such thing!.

Then read again the interview you prefer (p.90):

I ordered him to return towards the Teheran base. He turned back. By this time he was heading towards the border with Afghanistan. When he was about 150 miles away, still coming back towards me, the object suddenly appeared over Teheran.

Again…Mooy’s is a summary report, Pirouzi was “the man on the ground”!

But Pirouzi apparently told people something completely different if Mooy states that nobody saw the UFO when the F-4 passed over the airport. Either that or he was never interviewed and somebody else reported this.

Again…you actually prefer a single newspaper account over the first hand witness account? You amaze me sometimes… (no you don’t…). I have stated that there would be NO rational reason for Jafari to lie about his rank, indeed, there are MANY reasons why he would NOT lie. I have stated them many times now. I don’t need to repeat them here. You are like a broken record at this point. Can’t you come up with ANY reasonable argument to refute the evidence in this case?

I can think of several reasons to lie (the islamic revolution is a good one). I am questioning his rank because there are sources indicating he was a LT at the time. You blindly accept his claim that he was a major and a squadron commander in 1976. Prove your case that he was absolutely a major with something concrete. Otherwise there is reason to doubt his claim of rank.

Finally, you are going to totally ignore my question to about Klass’ sources (that you have cited before and would probably like to cite Klass further if they were legitimate) aren’t you. This is because an accurate answer would place you contentions in a worse light than they already are!

I have listed Klass' sources but you refuse to acknowledge they are just as legitimate as Maccabee's (who are also anonymous).

 

[Laton]

I REALLY wish people would apprise themselves of the FACTs in the case. Why don't you start with Jafari's description of the "missile" incident at (http://www.iranian.com/main/singlepage/2008/parviz-jafari-2 - from about 5:30 on). Here he describes that what he thought could have been a missile fired at him from the UFO coming toward him. He decided that he should prepare to fire a missile in reply...NOTE: that is NOT the same thing as actually trying (or attempting) to FIRE the AIM-9 at that moment. However, Jafari was unable to even "select" the missile because when he looked at his control panel (in his own words) "to see if the missile was selected or not" ... "I saw all the instruments fluctuating" ... "and there was no lights inside the missile panel, so I saw there was no use for none of these things..."

So in Jafari's OWN words... he did not even get as far as confirming missile selection, let alone trying to actually launch one! Obviously Jafari would have known the capabilities of his armament and would have selected an appropriate time to actually launch a missile - if indeed he EVER decided that he WOULD actually launch one... The way his statement actually comes across is that he considered a hostile act from the UFO was possible and that HIS appropriate course was to select a missile to potentially return the favour IF THE NEED AROSE... that is all.

That vid is blocked for me for some reason but I was going from descriptions from two of the sources that you posted which state that he attempted to fire an AIM-9.

Just curious, had he been able to fire a missile and it fail to guide or work would you consider that more backing for your claim of 'alien' interference with the technology?

 

[Rramjet]

Istated:
I claim “aliens” and you rightly ask me to provide evidence for that claim.
YOU claim “mundane” and I rightly ask you to provide evidence for that claim.

…and then asked you to point out what was wrong with that …

You “replied”:

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.

This does NOT answer my question!

More… in all the cases I have presented you do NOT know what the object was! So how CAN you claim “your” explanation to be “known”? Rubbish!

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.

Again…HOW does this answer my question? You simply DO NOT KNOW what the objects were in EVERY case I have presented! So HOW can you claim they are “known”?

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.

HOW do you know the probability of “aliens” existing? HOW do you know that the probability for the objects in the cases I present being “alien”are not 100%. Simply you DO NOT! So your claim is again complete and utter rubbish! Again YOUR burden is to show that for each case I present there is a reasonable mundane explanation. IF you CANNOT do that (and obviously you cannot) then I a m free to hypothesise explanations that FIT the evidence. You have provided NOTHING that fits the evidence in ANY of the cases I have presented.

WE have no burden of proof because WE are NOT making a claim. We are simply stating that since you have NOT eliminating alternative explanations, the fact that you are positing an unknown to explain this phenomenon is unwarranted.

Garbage! You are claiming a “mundane” explanation. THAT IS a claim! And by your OWN logic you MUST support that claim with evidence!

WE are not making an assertion.

Nonsense! You assert there to be a “mundane” explanation for the cases I present…yet strangely you cannot come up with ANY such explanation that reasonably fits the evidence!

NOBODY is claiming that it WAS a blimp, or a hoax, or whatever. I, and others, claim that you HAVE NOT shown that mundane, known-to-exist alternatives have NOT BEEN ruled out.

By the SAME logic you have NOT ruled out “alien” as the explanation.

THINK about it. Do blimps exist, for instance ? Or do you need me to provide evidence that they do ?

No, you simply need to provide evidence that a blimp was at Rogue River at the time. You have NOT done that. MORE, the eyewitness testimony describes an object that does NOT have the characteristics of a blimp. So, “blimp” is an entirely unreasonable explanation. What else you got?

Plus, we KNOW that there were blimps in the general area, no matter if some operations were halted during that period. So the possibility of a blimp being the cause has NOT BEEN ruled out. That's why I don't need to make any sort of claim. I only need to show that YOUR claim has no merit.

The ONLY claim I have ever made about Rogue River is that there is NO reasonable mundane explanation to be found. Therefore the object was (by definition) a UFO. That is ALL. “Blimp” HAS been ruled out ON THE EVIDENCE.

If you can't understand this, then you don't understand the rules or evidence and burden of proof [...]

Again:
I claim “alien” you ask me for evidence.
You claim a mundane object, I ask YOU for evidence.

Simple. Logical. Straightforward. Your obtuseness in the matter knows no bounds.

YOU make a claim, WE challenge it because YOU can't prove it despite your contention that you can, and because YOU can't dismiss the possibility of alternative possibilities which ARE NOT CLAIMS.

I provide EVIDENCE to support my claims. Yet YOU claim to explain one “unknown” with the mere possibility of another unknown? This is illogical. It is NOT a rational claim from you. You CLAIM alternative possibilities, yet cannot point to ANY. Bunk!

I wake up in the middle of the night and see a man-shaped shadow in the room. I freak out, eventually fall back to sleep, and then come to the JREF forum ranting about CIA people in my bedroom. That's claim X. The skeptics here will reason that there is no evidence for my claim, and rightly so. They say it was probably just a shadow. That's claim Y.

Do you REALLY think that they need to PROVE that it's a shadow ?

Why not? Both claims have equal a priori weight. However, the sceptics DO have evidence that they are correct (and you are incorrect) because they can cite instances where other (independent in the same room at the same time) witnesses have seen that similar claims to yours are false. If there was NO such “other witness” cases that could be introduced as evidence - then they WOULD have to go and find PROOF that your claim is incorrect (that it was a shadow and nothing else).

Ramjet, that is IRRELEVANT. The point is that "blimp" is a mundane explanation and "aliens" is not, making blimps (and many other mundane explanations for this observation) automatically more probable. No one here is saying that it's a shut case.

But if a blimp is not a reasonable explanation (that is it does NOT fit the evidence), and you cannot find ANY other “mundane” explanation, then I am free to hypothesise what I like about the case!

If you propose “blimp” then you must provide evidence for a blimp. Simple. Logical. Straightforward.

I think you're just abusing the term "burden of proof", here. In fact, I'm pretty sure you understand what it means and I'm starting to think you're not arguing entirely honestly, here.

Again:
I claim “alien” you ask me for evidence.
You claim a mundane object, I ask YOU for evidence.

I cannot believe you still don’t get it.. (yes I can).

Enough ?

That last one, by the way, was post 524 on page 14, back on 16 October!!!

I do not believe that you can honestly claim I haven't explained this to you.

No, you have NOT explained what is wrong with my conception. You have danced around the point and have never directly addressed it. WHY do you feel you don’t have to provide evidence for your claims? (and it is NOT enough to state that you do NOT make claims as a way out of answering that question – because you patently DO make claims).

 

[RoboTimbo]

You claim aliens for Rogue River. "Aliens" would be an extraordinary claim. You provide anecdotal evidence.

Others claim that blimps exist and show you pictures of blimps. Blimps are mundane objects.

A real scientist would have understood the difference between an extraordinary claim and a mundane one and the level of evidence required for each.

A UFOlogist claiming to be a scientist would not.

 

[GeeMack]

Just so we know we're all at the same place here, has anyone seen Rramjet provide any legitimate evidence yet to support his claim that aliens exist?

 

[gambling_cruiser]

Just so we know we're all at the same place here, has anyone seen Rramjet provide any legitimate evidence yet to support his claim that aliens exist?

Nope. Nada, zilch, not a little tiny bit of evidence for aliens.

 

[Akhenaten]

Just so we know we're all at the same place here, has anyone seen Rramjet provide any legitimate evidence yet to support his claim that aliens exist?

Well, I DID find these . . .

 

[Rramjet]

You see your first hand witness accounts are not all that first hand and they are surely not solid evidence.

You people are really beginning to unravel over the Tehran case aren’t you! The case seems to have “done your heads in”. Ha! First hand witnesses are not first hand witnesses? Do you even think about what you write anymore?

And witnesses being solid evidence? Ummm…noooo…. It is actually their testimony that constitutes the evidence.

Then you provide some “explanations” which on reading carefully amount to stating that the case is a matter of “human error” in combination with “electronic warfare” devices…

Let us explore these claims of yours.

To begin there were numerous independent witnesses to the object.
1. Civilians on the ground who phoned Mehrabad tower.
2. Civilian aircraft
3. The tower controller and his men
4. The General who ordered the F-4s into the air
5. The four F-4 pilots
6. There was also radar contact.

There is NO question that the F-4s went up after something and you imply your admission to THAT fact (at least) by referring to electronic warfare – which means in turn you accept the avionics disruptions. So let us return to the EXPERT in the case: Major Roland B. Evans of the DIA.

“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.”

“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)

So the REAL evidence (numerous independent witnesses and expert assessment of the case) tends to make “human error” and electronic warfare “suites” NOT reasonable explanations for the case.

Klass used his source interviews with TR-1 and TR-2. They are just as good as the ones done by Maccabee since both are anonymous.

No… Klass’ sources are second hand sources (at best considering they are also anonymous) who are merely making unsupported claims and unfounded assertion, while Maccabee’s sources are first hand accounts! Surely you understand the difference.

How do you know that this information did not come from Pirouzi? It was written one month before the interview and Pirouzi was quoted. Therefore, he must have been interviewed. What the author wrote is based on what he learned from Pirouzi and the General. If you want to say this report is totally unreliable, I am going to agree with you. Of course, it makes the MUFON interview just as unreliable.

Obviously some of the information DID come from Checkley’s interview with Pirouzi! The date (hand written above Pirouzi’s ACTUAL interview statements: p.85 of 113 in the MUFON Case File) is the date the correspondent received the document from Checkley, NOT the date of the interview. You are merely (again) trying to rewrite history to suit your own belief system.

I have stated before, the ONLY reliable information in the document you cite (p.63 of 113 in the MUFON Case File) are those bits that directly quote Pirouzi on the matter.

Then read again the interview you prefer (p.90):

I ordered him to return towards the Teheran base. He turned back. By this time he was heading towards the border with Afghanistan. When he was about 150 miles away, still coming back towards me, the object suddenly appeared over Teheran.

Astrophotographer… As I have already stated (and obviously you wilfully ignored) Pirouzi’s comments here on Afghanistan refer to a direction NOT a location.

But Pirouzi apparently told people something completely different if Mooy states that nobody saw the UFO when the F-4 passed over the airport. Either that or he was never interviewed and somebody else reported this.

Pirouzi’s comments do NOT conflict with Mooy’s summary!

Pirouzi: “He reported on radio, ‘It keeps coming toward me.’ He swung the jet around in a tight turn and the light followed him and as they swept over the tower at Tehran, the (object) which was chasing him by now was 500 feet above and just behind him. I saw this light for the first time, though only for a few seconds.”

Mooy: “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.”

Pirouzi provides no time reference for WHEN he saw the “light”. Indeed his statement seems to indicate that at first he did NOT see the light and this accords with Mooy’s statement. You indulge in historical revisionism again!

I can think of several reasons to lie (the islamic revolution is a good one).

So now you are an expert on the Islamic Revolution and its affect on military rankings within the Royal Iranian Air Force? Rubbish Astrophotographer. Utter nonsense! And please…NAME the reasons you consider that Jafari might lie…

I am questioning his rank because there are sources indicating he was a LT at the time.

WHAT “sources”? As far as I know there is only one original source for the “Lt” assignation and that is a newspaper account – and they are well known for their reliability! Ha! I repeat: WHAT are your sources for the information?

You blindly accept his claim that he was a major and a squadron commander in 1976.

Wow. I have stated that there are good, sound, logical reasons why Jafari would NOT lie about his military rank and there are also good, sound logical reasons why he would want to be truthful (in that he has NO REASON to lie and his credibility could be torn to shreds on the simple sayso of a colleague or someone accessing his military record for example).

Prove your case that he was absolutely a major with something concrete. Otherwise there is reason to doubt his claim of rank.

No… it is entirely reasonable to accept Jafari’s statements on the matter – on the other hand, if you want to unreasonably dispute those statements, then YOU must provide the proof that Jafari was lying…

I have listed Klass' sources but you refuse to acknowledge they are just as legitimate as Maccabee's (who are also anonymous).

You have NOT listed Klass’ sources. You have merely made reference to them - but you have NOT listed them so that they are accessible to anyone who reads your post and you have NOT told us whether they are first or second (or some other) hand accounts. Dr Maccabee’s sources are FIRST HAND sources. What were Klass’?

That vid is blocked for me for some reason but I was going from descriptions from two of the sources that you posted which state that he attempted to fire an AIM-9.

Just curious, had he been able to fire a missile and it fail to guide or work would you consider that more backing for your claim of 'alien' interference with the technology?

Try these links then:
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJydT3AZ370) and (http://www.iranian.com/main/singlepage/2008/parviz-jafari-2)

Jafari did NOT fire a missile. I have no opinion on whether a missile failing to work would support my claims. I would have to examine the details of such an occurrence and assess them on their merits. Your mere statement of possibility is simply NOT enough to form ANY opinion about my claims.

You claim aliens for Rogue River. "Aliens" would be an extraordinary claim. You provide anecdotal evidence.

Others claim that blimps exist and show you pictures of blimps. Blimps are mundane objects.

A real scientist would have understood the difference between an extraordinary claim and a mundane one and the level of evidence required for each.

A UFOlogist claiming to be a scientist would not.

I have NEVER claimed “aliens” for Rogue River. You demonstrate a complete lack of knowledge of my position (consistently stated) concerning the matter…why am I not surprised? Rogue River was a UFO…plain and simple. That is all I set out to demonstrate and the UFO debunkers have NOT been able to provide ANY reasonable mundane explanation that accords with the evidence in the case… (unless of course blimps are circular in plan section on the horizontal plane (like a coin) and travel at jet plane speeds and make no sound while doing so!)

Your colleague Belz stated in no uncertain terms that “NOBODY is claiming that it WAS a blimp…” The UFO debunker arguments shift like the blowing desert sand they have their heads firmly planted in! Without batting an eyelid they will make one claim, only to refute that very same claim at a different time when it suits them – and then flip back and forth between contradictions like a schizophrenic on acid – all to support their unfounded belief system. One can only laugh at their antics.

Oh so you are back to Guru Sagan’s illogic of “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” then are you? Pray tell me what your definition of “extraordinary evidence” might be then RoboTimbo? Please… I really WOULD like to know!

 

[Rramjet]

Well, I DID find these . . .

Hey... where are the auxiliary wing tanks? I was under the impression from Puddle Duck that the F-4 could not fly without them!

ETA: Note also the centre tank...this shows the F-4 can carry additional fuel without having to also carry the two wing tanks (as if we did not already know this...)

 

[GeeMack]

Your colleague Belz stated in no uncertain terms that “NOBODY is claiming that it WAS a blimp…” The UFO debunker arguments shift like the blowing desert sand they have their heads firmly planted in! Without batting an eyelid they will make one claim, only to refute that very same claim at a different time when it suits them – and then flip back and forth between contradictions like a schizophrenic on acid – all to support their unfounded belief system. One can only laugh at their antics.

You continue to misunderstand things that are explained simply, concisely, and in a way that most sixth grade children can understand. Have you talked to the principal there at your high school about that remedial reading program, Rramjet? It would help you catch up. Everyone else is on page 92 here while you're still struggling with the same issues you didn't understand on page 4.

 

[Access Denied]

Dr Maccabee’s sources are FIRST HAND sources.

Then you should have no trouble telling us their full names so their claims can be independently verified. What are they?

"I don't know" is not an acceptable answer if you wish to use their alleged testimony to make your case and it’s not up to any of us to find this information out for you. You’re the one vouching for the veracity of their testimony… now prove it or you must retract their testimony as unsubstantiated.

And while you’re at it, what are the full names and ranks of all four pilots allegedly involved in this incident? List your sources.

Back in a few…

 

[beachnut]

MY flawed notion of the burden of proof?

...
So we have a UFO that can shapeshift, display intelligent control (flee, outrun and chase F-4s), affect its environment (disable and disrupt an F-4 as well a civialian airliner avionics), “jump” from location to location, split apart and rejoin… and you don’t consider that remarkable at all?

... I have NEVER claimed “from another world” as you seem to ignorantly assume. ...
we have eyewitness descriptions to inform us about what UFOs look like…where have you been all thread amb?

...a Major who is a squadron leader is a “junior pilot”? And YOU are now an expert on the career path of a Royal Iranian Air Force pilot now are you? ...

I have consistently presented evidence to support my contentions. ...

The shape-shift proves you like delusions from a pilot suffering illusions. If you took time to read up on flight physiology you would not fall for witnesses who never present proof just talk how their lights, their illusions are UFOs that pull 500 Gs, defy gravity, and have aliens, but not exactly from another world. Let me explain a pilot who can pull 500 Gs is from a another world most likely safe in the neurons in someone head orbiting the sun.

The Iranian pilot story is rich.

Explain the jump from location to location. Was this the super pilot from Iran under the bow canopy of an F-4? Have you flown high performance jets, or been in pilot training flying supersonic trainers, and or completed comprehensive aerospace physical training? Is this still a skeptics forum? You have no presented any evidence for UFOs, or aliens. I did see some aliens crossing the border, so you mean people from Mexico are flying shape-shifting super vehicles that fly?

I saw a big silver object very high it was following me while I was at 41,000 feet. But the object appeared to be following me like the moon follows you at night because the moon is so far away. The weather balloon was far away. Amazing how high balloons get.

I saw a UFO one day at 27,000 feet but they were party balloons from someone in Oregon or Northern California. I am a pilot and I actually can fly as fast as a UFO and I solve my UFO for myself.

At night I have seen fire dancing on my windscreen, but gee, the sailors of long ago saw the slow speed version on their sails at night on the ocean.

The UFOs only exist in our minds, in the real world they are illusions or other objects. If you insist that real objects can change location at will you could be stuck in a movie like Star Trek where transporting exists; but this forum is stuck in the reality of now and as of yet no aliens (except those looking for work) have arrived in UFOs except on V and they are on break for a while.

The Iranian pilot wins as the best BS UFO. ?Rense.com, they insist on spewing nonsense. I would stop posting references from Rense your credibility will rise orders of magnitude; don't you think?

So for the Iran UFO where are the RADAR tapes? Was it at night? Most likely the pilot was chasing a star. My co-pilot was sure Mars was traffic ans he watched Mars for hours; the navigator did not help as he denied Mars (the big red planet to the east, while we flew east) was up! He loved teasing the co-pilot. Of all the air forces in the world Iran and Iraq are the ones most likely to suspect of having illusions and not being able to figure it out.

Most likely the canopy bow did not help the poor pilot with his illusion.

These guys split apart and rejoined. They also took on fuel in the air; and some people might say fighter pilots are aliens. Look at that curved canopy and see the visors on the helmet; two visors. Did the pilot have both visors down, or up? How long did the F-4s in Iran chase the lights?

I think your UFO is an illusion. But it will be interesting to see the RADAR tapes and supporting evidence; like the fried avionics; are those in evidence? I bet someone's dog at the RADAR tapes and the fried avionics were misplaced.

 

[Jocce]

My kid brother can fly and fire missiles! You are suddenly (with amb) an expert on “alien” technology? What illogical nonsense! First people pretend UFOs don’t exist, but then when it suits them, they claim to know about the technology that they operate by! Illogical woo at the highest level.

I didn't claim anything, I asked you something about alien technology which YOU seem to be an expert on, not me. Evasion noted.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I have NEVER claimed “aliens” for Rogue River. You demonstrate a complete lack of knowledge of my position (consistently stated) concerning the matter…why am I not surprised? Rogue River was a UFO…plain and simple.

And then you tried to redefine UFO with your bait and switch tactics. You were angry that nobody was caught off guard by it.

That is all I set out to demonstrate and the UFO debunkers have NOT been able to provide ANY reasonable mundane explanation that accords with the evidence in the case… (unless of course blimps are circular in plan section on the horizontal plane (like a coin) and travel at jet plane speeds and make no sound while doing so!)

Or unless oil well fires can chase and surround a military plane and be caught on FLIR doing it.

Your colleague Belz stated in no uncertain terms that “NOBODY is claiming that it WAS a blimp…” The UFO debunker arguments shift like the blowing desert sand they have their heads firmly planted in! Without batting an eyelid they will make one claim, only to refute that very same claim at a different time when it suits them – and then flip back and forth between contradictions like a schizophrenic on acid – all to support their unfounded belief system. One can only laugh at their antics.

Reading comprehension, Rramjet. I stated that "blimps exist". I did not state that they were the only possible answer for Rogue River. Dishonesty much, Rramjet?

Oh so you are back to Guru Sagan’s illogic of “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” then are you? Pray tell me what your definition of “extraordinary evidence” might be then RoboTimbo? Please… I really WOULD like to know!

No, I'm back to your claim of "I'm a scientist". I think that's the source of the laughter you're hearing. But I applaud your desire to want to learn from me.

 

[Akhenaten]

Hey... where are the auxiliary wing tanks? I was under the impression from Puddle Duck that the F-4 could not fly without hem!

Your impression about this is as mistaken as all of your others, and it doesn't have anything to do with PD.

ETA: Note also the centre tank...this shows the F-4 can carry additional fuel without having to also carry the two wing tanks (as if we did not already know this...)

What I note is that Sidewinder hanging on the rack there. Are you seriously suggesting that I use a picture that I myself photoshopped as a reference for something?


There are bits of three different aircraft in that picture, Mr Expert.

 

[Access Denied]

The principals in the Tehran UFO incident

Nice try to rewrite the case to ignore all the problems we’ve pointed out to you. Anybody with a half a brain that’s reading this, including the “true believers” you might think you’re doing a favor, can surely see you’re been practicing to deceive and got yourself in deep, way over your head. Oh what tangled webs we weave…

First hand witness accounts

Houssain Pirouzi, tower controller, Mehrabad airport

Sorry but Pirouzi’s “testimony” must be treated as potentially false because, in addition to the discrepancies Astrophotographer and others have already pointed out…

Then 4 civilian planes began reporting an emergency distress signal (BOAC, Swissair, Lufthansa and Iranian Airlines).

This isn’t mentioned in the Mooy memo that you claimed was an accurate summary of events as they occurred. How do you explain that?

(UFO now at 15000 feet to the NE of Tehran).

This isn’t mentioned in the Mooy memo that you claimed was an accurate summary of events as they occurred. Furthermore, how is it possible for Pirouzi to know the altitude if it wasn’t picked up on any radar?

Pirouzi “I was getting instruction from Gen. Yousefi and passing them on to the pilot”. Thus we can assume Pirouzi was passing on information from the F-4 to the General.

This isn’t mentioned in the Mooy memo that you claimed was an accurate summary of events as they occurred. In fact the Mooy memo clearly states that after Yossefi talked to the tower (you know like hung up) he noticed what looked like a star (only bigger and brighter, you know like a planet) and decided to scramble a jet to investigate. So no, “we” can’t assume that...

The F-4 reports reaching Mach 2 but cannot catch the UFO.

This isn’t mentioned in the Mooy memo that you claimed was an accurate account of events as they occurred. Furthermore, this claim has been debunked by Puddle Duck as most likely impossible. How do you explain that?

Both UFO and F-4 were now “heading toward the border with Afghanistan” so Pirouzi orders the jet to turn back.

This isn’t mentioned in the Mooy memo that you claimed was an accurate account of events as they occurred. So Pirouzi, who’s a civilian, is giving orders to a military pilot from a General who’s at home? Likely story...

However, the UFO “had beaten him back” and was now again in front of the F-4 over Tehran!

This isn’t mentioned in the Mooy memo that you claimed was an accurate account of events as they occurred. How do you explain that?

The pilot reported that “every time he came close to the object, it affected his radio and all his instruments” (including “navigation aids”).

This is contradicted by the Mooy memo that you claimed was an accurate account of events as they occurred. According to the Mooy memo he broke off the intercept and headed back to base the first and only time this allegedly happened. How do you explain that?

He also reported receiving “some emergency signals”.

This isn’t mentioned in the Mooy memo that you claimed was an accurate account of events as they occurred. How do you explain that?

A second F-4 had already been sent up and the pilot (we now know was squadron leader, Major Jafari) called the second plane “You go back to base … I’ll follow the object”.
This means of course that the second F-4 pilot (Jafari) KNEW what was happening to the first (a critical point).

This isn’t mentioned in the Mooy memo that you claimed was an accurate account of events as they occurred. Furthermore, "we” don’t “know“ anything about Jafari for sure including whether or not he was actually there. In fact Bob Pratt’s article that identifies Lt. Jalal Damirian and 2nd Lt. Hossein Shokryas as the pilots of the second jet remains unrefuted, especially if it predates Jafari’s “claim to fame”. Let me remind you that you yourself have entered this article into evidence by citing McKenzie’s and Evan’s alleged statements from it so you can’t simply dismiss it as inaccurate unless you’re willing to throw that out too.

Good luck with that…

[I suggest you look up the definition of “cherry picking”… it’s a big no no for anyone who claims to be a scientist]

General Yousefi orders Jafari to orbit at 15000 feet.

This isn’t mentioned in the Mooy memo that you claimed was an accurate account of events as they occurred. How do you explain that?

Jafari reports UFO “keeps changing position very fast indeed. I cannot follow the path of the object … he appears here, suddenly he appears there, and I can’t track him”.

This isn’t mentioned in the Mooy memo that you claimed was an accurate account of events as they occurred. How do you explain that?

Sorry but I think at this point any reasonable person would have to conclude that Pirouzi has most likely inserted himself into the story and taken you and Maccabee for a ride… along with the National Enquirer to the tune of $5,000 (US).

Jafari confirms the substance of what Pirouzi reports but adds details – including the claim that he DID try to fire on the UFO but that his missile systems failed when he did this.

I love that phrase “adds details”… UFOlogy speak for “embellishes the story” after the fact.

Based on the numerous discrepancies noted above with the closest thing we have to an official record of the incident, we must now also consider Jafari’s ”testimony” suspect since he “confirms” these discrepancies.

In fact, the whole incident as reported must be called into question because according to Mooy, the pilot of the second jet claimed one of the objects landed yet no evidence of this having occurred was found later that day. How do you explain that?

So what do you say Rramjet, instead of all this endless back and forth and explaining you now have to do, how about limiting the discussion to what’s actually contained in the only document that’s provenance is agreed upon by all?

(the Mooy memo)

 

[Rramjet]

Wow…this Tehran case has sent you all barking mad…

GeeMack is consistent at least in his bullyboy abuse. Abuse is of course the lowest form of “argument”, just short of physical violence, and THAT is the standard JREF judges itself by?

Beachnut seems positively psychotic, confusing sources (the shape shifting descriptions were from Pirouzi, not the pilots) and confusing F-4 actions with UFO actions (the UFO “jumped” locations, NOT the F-4s!), contending that we do NOT know how high weather balloons travel (remember the White Sands And Rogue River sources, discussion and analysis), claiming party balloons can reach 27000 feet (!), claiming that the UFO debunkers of this forum are delusional because “UFOs only exist in our minds”, asserting that my source is “?Rense.com”, asking if the Tehran event occurred at NIGHT (OMG!), …as I say, psychotic (my sources have clearly been placed on the record MORE than once, as has much of the evidence pertinent to beachnut’s assertions, so much so that any reasonable person could not have failed to understand the substantive details of the cases presented, so for him to get all this SO wrong, a reasonable conclusion is then psychosis) …again, this is the standard of JREF?

We have Jocce stating he did not “claim” to know anything about alien technology or motivations, yet he clearly stated “We know that russians and americans can fly and fire missiles. Now, all you need to do is to prove that the aliens have the technology necessary to do that. It would also be great if you could show that alien bases were located within flying distance of Teheran at the time of the incident. Which means of course that he assumes aliens have “missiles” and utilise “missile” technology and that aliens need (or have) bases …all of which IS claiming to “know” alien technology and/or motivations and is therefore utter unfounded nonsense.

Thus standard by which JREF can be judged (so far) is abusive, psychotic and nonsensical. Who else have we got?

Oh yes… RoboTimbo… claiming “oil well fires” can chase jets when a reference is made to Rogue River …claiming that there are other possibilities for Rogue River, yet NEVER mentioning just WHAT they might be… totally ignoring a request for information on a topic HE raised (just what DOES constitute “extraordinary evidence” RoboTimbo?) …seemingly unable to come to terms with the “quote” facility of this forum… contending that my unwise (in the context of this forum) claim to be a scientist should be a matter of ridicule… this is the standard for JREF?

We have Akhenaten posting “Photo-shopped” images in place of substantive argument (is he trying to tell us he is gay? He certainly seems obsessed with something called “Gay Rodeo” - is this an event somewhere he is trying to promote? I thought that advertising corporate or personal events were banned in this forum! Moderators?) and we have Access denied, who obviously knows about my post of my principal sources (he quotes the relevant post), then acting as if he knows NOTHING about those sources and seems fixated on Mooy’s memorandum as if it is the ONLY relevant evidence in the case.

I can see there is a CLEAR and PRESENT NEED to repost the SOURCES and substantive detail so that everyone can at LEAST access the information that can inform their comments in the future (the thread seems to have devolved into utter nonsense – perhaps the sources and details of the case will help). I can only suppose that, since people have got the substantive details of the Tehran case (at the very least) SO wrong, they do not know where to get the verified information that has proven provenance about the case: Thus I repost and suggest that BEFORE anyone else posts, they at the very LEAST apprise themselves of the details on the case.

See here for first hand witness accounts: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5422808#post5422808

Rather then copy/quote your old posts, please just provide their link....

Posted By: Locknar

 

[tsig]

Just so we know we're all at the same place here, has anyone seen Rramjet provide any legitimate evidence yet to support his claim that aliens exist?

Well we've got blimps, gay rodeos and jet pilots flying around in the dark with faulty equipment. I think there was a drunken priest sighting but it went by too fast for me to see.

 

[Spektator]

Originally Posted by GeeMack
Just so we know we're all at the same place here, has anyone seen Rramjet provide any legitimate evidence yet to support his claim that aliens exist?

Unsupported anecdotes, declarations without anything to back them, arguments from incredulity...but no legitimate evidence.

 

[Astrophotographer]

Astrophotographer… As I have already stated (and obviously you wilfully ignored) Pirouzi’s comments here on Afghanistan refer to a direction NOT a location.

Earlier you stated that he never said anything about the 150 miles. I provide a quote to demonstrate you are wrong and now you try and spin it to make it sound like you were right. What part of 150 miles away is not a locaton?

Pirouzi’s comments do NOT conflict with Mooy’s summary!

Pirouzi: “He reported on radio, ‘It keeps coming toward me.’ He swung the jet around in a tight turn and the light followed him and as they swept over the tower at Tehran, the (object) which was chasing him by now was 500 feet above and just behind him. I saw this light for the first time, though only for a few seconds.”

Mooy: “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.”

Pirouzi provides no time reference for WHEN he saw the “light”. Indeed his statement seems to indicate that at first he did NOT see the light and this accords with Mooy’s statement. You indulge in historical revisionism again!.

That is a bunch of hooey and you know it. He clearly states he saw the light above his plane when it passed near the tower, which is in direct conflict with Mooy's report where they did not see any object over the F-4. Your inability to even consider the possibility of conflicting information demonstrates you are truly close-minded about this. Historical revisionism my foot. You truly are set in your mind. Your doctorate (assuming you actually have one) is not worth the paper it is written upon.

So now you are an expert on the Islamic Revolution and its affect on military rankings within the Royal Iranian Air Force? Rubbish Astrophotographer. Utter nonsense! And please…NAME the reasons you consider that Jafari might lie…

What happened during the revolution alterred many things in the Iranian military. People were killed by the fundamentalists for their positions (the head of the IIAF was executed I believe). BTW, in my examination of the IIAF histories, the only major's I have discovered were only assistant squadron commanders and not squadron commanders (which were usually Lt. Colonels or higher).

Possible reasons might include an inflation of resume to add credibility to claim. How many people do you know have done this in the civilian community? I see it done many times. How many people have claimed to be something in the military they were not? I have seen it done with people claiming to be SEALs but were not.

You have NOT listed Klass’ sources. You have merely made reference to them - but you have NOT listed them so that they are accessible to anyone who reads your post and you have NOT told us whether they are first or second (or some other) hand accounts. Dr Maccabee’s sources are FIRST HAND sources. What were Klass’?

Obviously you never read Klass' book. Why not? Why didn't you read his material to accurately assess the case from both sides? Apparently, you have no interest in reading conflicting opinions. Klass' sources were first hand interviews with these technical representatives who were there at the time.

What I see here is somebody, who has solely relied on the Internet for his information and only the information that supports his case. Any other information is declared false or incorrect because it disagrees with the preconceived conclusion. This is not science but pseudoscience. You have demonstrated that you incapable of objectively examining the evidence.