UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

Status
Not open for further replies.
Rramjet, one more time: an APR is a passive airborne radar receiver, which lacks any ability of delivering distance information, depends completly on the enemy radar source and can only detect a radar signal of a certain frequency band.
To assume an alien spaceship uses the same frequency band as the russian radars (all phantoms were build during the cold war, so building in detectors for the enemies radar equipment was a prudential choice) is really laughable.
Therfore if no part of this ufo story is connected to an russian aircraft, then the APR 36/37 would have nothing to detect. Radar and homing warner means radar warner and homing warner. The first function looks for surveilance radar, the homing warning feature warns against a radar lock on and guidance illumination for an interceptor or a SAM.
 
Last edited:
Rramjet said:
What then is your "known" in the Tehran or Father Gill cases? If there IS NO "known", then how can you "favour" it? What YOU are in fact doing is trying to explain one unknown with another unknown - and that IS illogical!
Click to expand...

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.
 
gambling_cruiser said:
Therfore if no part of this ufo story is connected to an russian aircraft, then the APR 36/37 would have nothing to detect. Radar and homing warner means radar warner and homing warner. The first function looks for surveilance radar, the homing warning feature warns against a radar lock on and guidance illumination for an interceptor or a SAM.
Click to expand...

Historically plausible i.e. the Russian jets - particularly the MIG 51 - the Shah mentioned to Nixon the continuing incursion of MIG 51 into Iranian airspace in 1972.

And, by the middle of 76, the Shah had managed to upset the US (and the West) by standing firm on increased oil prices (and having nationalised oil a couple of years before), the Russians (because of the Shah’s relationship with the US – e.g. the Baghdad Pact), the Saudis (for not always agreeing with OPEC), and his own people after replacing the Islamic calendar with an "imperial" calendar In January 1976, seen by Islamists as betrayal to their faith.

All in all, he was starting to feel at this time very much alone and his paranoia, which would increase right up to his overthrow, was setting in.

 
Thank you, amb.

Rramjet, I am sorry you think me hypocritical. I am not the one claiming to be a scientist and my "survey" was nothing more than an attempt at a light-hearted comment on this very lengthy thread.
Still, it seems to me that the Blimp Case (or should that be A Case of the Blimps?) is symptomatic of your approach and the problems you encounter when presenting your argument.
At the risk of reinforcing your belief in the pack mentality displayed by members on this thread, I must say this. To most people, the statements, descriptions and depictions concerning the Rogue River object indicate the very strong possibility that it was, in fact,a blimp of some kind.
Why not show some of that same open-mindedness you are accusing others of lacking, accept that possibility and move on to other, better, cases?
There are some, aren't there?

As far as the Iranian Mystery is concerned, I must say that I have found the information and the links provided by Puddle Duck and others about jet fighters quite fascinating.

Was there a "craft" capable of incredible tricks like shape-shifting and multiplying? Did that craft disappear for ever without a trace after spending a few hours showing off over a Middle-Eastern city? Well... I'll have to think on that one.........

The New Guinea Space Tourists? I probably need to familiarise myself with a few more "facts" before hazarding an opinion.

ETA. Is Puddle Duck a 14 year-old girl with a fetish about jet planes and fighter pilots? Well, it is the internet and anything is possible. If that is the case, she deserves to be congratulated on the successful impersonation of what seems to me to be a very reasonable and down-to-earth (pun intended) professional doing his best to explain his craft to non-specialists.
 
Dockie said:
Why not show some of that same open-mindedness you are accusing others of lacking, accept that possibility and move on to other, better, cases?
There are some, aren't there?
Click to expand...

actually, Rramjet chose the Rogue River case as his best example, It was his first choice and he chose it on page 2 of this thread, which if anything should show you how pointless it is to attempt to reason with him as he's proven himself on enough occaisons, totally incapable of it and has become more wacko as time has progressed and more evidence to the contrary of his argument has been demonstrated by rational people
;)
 
Belgian thought said:
The coordinates for Boainai - where else?
Click to expand...
Okaaaay…let me try again. What are the coordinates you are using?

Sledge said:
Rational argument is wasted on you, given your inability to respond to it. You can prove me wrong by answering my question: do you understand why you were wrong about the radar receiver?
Click to expand...
Typical UFO debunker… make the assumption that I am wrong without exploring the evidence. [/QUOTE]
Let us look at the statement I posted as evidence for my contention:

“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…

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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!).

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

Astrophotographer said:
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?
Click to expand...
What table? You mean the one that does NOT relate to F-4Es? Yeah sure…
 
Tizzy said:
I'll have to draw upon the expertise of others here because I have zero experience with the F-4, but there are some things that (if I have read them right) generate more questions. Puddle Duck, you're a driver, help me out.

This is about the first F-4, but everything has been mashed together so well I'm not sure anymore :).

If we assume the F-4 has 9 minutes of fuel using his afterburners (which stage, btw?) and he takes off using (full) afterburners (not uncommon for a scramble and/or loaded jet), and he used up 8 1/2 mins of flight time on the afterburners, in his egress there would be NO way he's landing ANYWHERE but a viable alternate. Am I right?

What I DO know about the F-4 is it doesn't make a good glider (not such a good glide ratio), so deadsticking the landing is probably not going to be fun. Just look at the aerodynamics of it, it's a rocket-sled. Since there was no mention of this, I assume the pilot made it back under his own power.

On the second F-4, he wasn't given a shoot down order, yet he tried to get a heat-seeking missile off to a unidentified bogey OVER Tehran?? Wtf. I also have no clue Iran's procedures for this, so maybe this is normal? A shoot down of a UFO over their capital and most populated city?

This isn't making a whole lot of sense unless I've got the story wrong.
Click to expand...
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”. 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.

Also from Tizzy
Actually, take the more modern F-16. If I'm not mistaken (trying to visualize), ONE switch is the difference between weapons/no weapons. It's location (what I'm thinking of) is its "MASTER ARM" (upper left panel). It should have three positions, only one of which allows actual weapons.
Click to expand...
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.

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.

From Access Denied
Documentary evidence that Jafari was the pilot of second jet. Both Puddle Duck and I (repeatedly) have asked you for it
Click to expand...
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.

Astrophotographer
Here is a link to a sit showing a bunch of pictures of Iranian F-4s. The listings are in chronological order and are sorted by “before the Iran-Irag war”, “during the war” and “after the war” There are pictures of three birds without drop tanks, the rest are carrying them.
w ww.ejection-history.org.uk/Country-By-Country/iranian_f_4_phantom_losses.htm
As a secondary task there, search for Jafari.


I’ve got houseguests for the next week, so anything from me will be short and/or intermittant.
 
Rramjet said:
Okaaaay…let me try again.
Click to expand...


To what end? You clearly aren't able to support your contention that aliens exist. Do you honestly believe that repeating your arguments from ignorance and incredulity are even remotely likely to sway anyone here?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom